Charge over advance sale consideration survives limitation where sale fails without buyer's improper refusal to complete contract.

A buyer who paid advance sale consideration was held entitled to a charge on the property under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act where the sale failed without the buyer improperly refusing completion; the charge claim was timely under Article 62 of the Limitation Act. The personal claim for refund of the advance was separate and was barred because the suit was filed beyond the three-year limitation period applicable to that money claim. The decree was therefore modified to recognise the advance as a charge on the immovable property with interest from the date of suit, while the personal money decree remained rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the claim for a personal decree for refund of advance sale consideration was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (ii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree creating a charge over the plaint schedule property under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and whether that relief was within limitation under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether the claim for a personal decree for refund of advance sale consideration was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The plaint sought both a personal money decree and a decree charged on the property. For the personal claim, the cause of action arose on failure to complete the sale within the contractual period, and the suit was instituted beyond the three-year period prescribed for such a claim. The court also noted that the plaintiff was not entitled to retain a personal claim beyond limitation merely because the transaction involved advance money.

Conclusion: The personal decree claim was barred by limitation and was rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree creating a charge over the plaint schedule property under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and whether that relief was within limitation under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: A buyer who has paid purchase money is entitled to a charge on the property unless he has improperly declined to accept delivery. The expression is understood as refusal to accept completion of the contract, and the statutory protection applies where the failure of the contract is not attributable solely to the buyer. On the facts, the vendor's inability to complete performance and the buyer's lack of readiness both contributed to the failure of the agreement, so the buyer could not be said to have improperly declined delivery. Since the relief was for enforcement of a charge on immovable property, the twelve-year period under Article 62 applied, making the claim timely.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to a charge over the property for the advance paid, and that relief was within limitation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent of the charged decree, while the personal money claim remained barred. The decree was modified to grant refund of the advance as a charge on the property with interest from the date of suit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a contract for sale fails without the buyer having improperly declined to accept completion of the contract, the buyer is entitled under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to a charge for the purchase money paid, and a suit to enforce that charge is governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

---