TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 792
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the properties to the predecessor of the plaintiffs, late Sahadevan, for a consideration of Rs. 46,00,000/-. The terms and conditions agreed between the parties had been reduced into a written agreement for sale executed on 11-1-1994 and an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- was given as advance towards sale consideration on the date of agreement itself. Subsequent payments were also made and altogether an amount of Rs. 17,50,000/- was given towards sale consideration. As per the agreement, the sale deed is to be executed on or before 30-6-1994 after measuring the properties and verifying the extent of the same. One of the terms of the agreement was that the defendants had to satisfy late Sahadevan the title of the properties by showing the original....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue No. (i). The Court below took the stand that the disputed fact as to who had committed default in the performance of the agreement is a complex issue which requires proof by oral and documentary evidence on both sides. The trial Court is of the view that for the purpose of deciding the suit filed under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the question of applicability of the relevant Article under the Limitation Act can be decided only after the evidence is taken. By taking such a view, according to me rightly, the trial Court refused to decide the question of limitation as a preliminary issue. The revision petitioners/defendants had insisted for a preliminary hearing of the above issue in spite of the factual and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stion, the Court below held that if an agreement could not be performed due to the fault of the buyer, the relevant Article applicable for the filing of the suit is Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and that the materials available before the Court do not lead to the conclusive finding that non-performance of the contract was due to the fault of the plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-interest. The Court below had raised a specific issue as to who was at fault for the non-performance of the contract which can be adjudicated only after examining the evidence adduced by the parties. The question as to whether the plaintiffs have improperly declined to accept delivery of the property or not is a question to be decided after taking evidence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upon immovable property" from the date when money becomes due. 7. It is clear from Article 62 of the Limitation Act that the period of limitation for enforcement of the statutory charge created under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act is 12 years from the date on which it become due and not three years. The Supreme Court in the decision in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. reported in AIR 2000 SC 573 held that the period of limitation for enforcement of a statutory charge created under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act is 12 years from the date when the money becomes due. The buyer's charge under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act would extend and enure to the pu....