Specific performance cannot rest on an unproved assignment, cancelled contract, and suit filed beyond limitation.

An alleged assignee can enforce a sale agreement only if the assignment is legally effective and the vendor has knowledge of or consented to the transfer; here, the assignment was not proved and could not bind the vendor. The purchaser had already defaulted on staged payment obligations and the vendor had terminated the contract, so no subsisting contractual right remained capable of assignment. The suit for specific performance was also filed after the limitation period, as the contract had been terminated in 1997 and the action was brought in 2000. The plaintiff was therefore not entitled to specific performance or the alternative relief claimed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged assignment of the sale agreement by the purchaser in favour of the plaintiff bound the vendor in the absence of the vendor's knowledge and consent; (ii) whether the purchaser had any subsisting right in the property so as to validly assign the agreement in favour of the plaintiff; (iii) whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged assignment of the sale agreement by the purchaser in favour of the plaintiff bound the vendor in the absence of the vendor's knowledge and consent.

Analysis: The agreement contemplated execution of sale in favour of the purchaser or his nominee. The document relied on as assignment did not clearly establish a completed assignment, and the evidence did not prove that the vendor had knowledge of or consented to any transfer of rights in favour of the plaintiff. Under the governing principles of specific performance, an assignee can enforce the contract only where the assignment is legally effective and not prohibited by the contract or the surrounding circumstances.

Conclusion: The alleged assignment did not bind the vendor and could not be enforced against her.

Issue (ii): Whether the purchaser had any subsisting right in the property so as to validly assign the agreement in favour of the plaintiff.

Analysis: The purchaser had not complied with the staged payment obligations under the agreement and the vendor had terminated the contract after the purchaser's default. Once the contract had been cancelled, no enforceable right remained in the purchaser to transfer. The plaintiff failed to prove that the purchaser had any subsisting contractual interest on the date of the alleged assignment.

Conclusion: The purchaser had no subsisting right capable of assignment in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue (iii): Whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The contract had been terminated in 1997 and the suit was filed in 2000. For a suit for specific performance, limitation runs from the fixed date for performance or from the date when refusal becomes known. On the facts found, the suit was instituted beyond the permissible period and the claim could not survive on limitation grounds.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the trial court could not be sustained, and the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance or the alternative relief claimed on the basis of the alleged assignment.

Ratio Decidendi: A contractual right to seek specific performance cannot be enforced by an alleged assignee where the original contract has been terminated, the assignment is unproved or unauthorised, and the suit is instituted beyond the prescribed limitation period.

---