NDLI: P. Daivasigamani Vs. S. Sambandan

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Specific Relief Act 16 & 20 – Agreement to sell – 1963 – Ss. 10
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Ss. 10, 16 & 20 – Agreement to sell – default to perform contract – readiness and willingness – delay in filing of suit – Appellant entered into an agreement to sale with the respondent in the year 1989 with a stipulation for completion of the sale transaction in 6 months – Despite respondent’s periodical correspondences, appellant failed to respond or perform his part of the contract – Respondent filed a suit for specific performance before the trial court – Trial court allowed the suit partly, allowing recovery of earnest money and refusing specific performance in view of the finding that the respondent could not prove readiness and willingness as at the time of filing of suit, respondent did not deposit the balance sale consideration amount in the court– Respondent appealed before High Court – High Court reversed the order of the trial court and allowed the appeal, thereby granting the relief of specific performance to the respondent – On appeal, held: The period of limitation had started running from the date the respondent noticed that the performance was refused by the appellant and not from the date of execution of agreement in question – The suit was filed by the respondent was well within the prescribed time u/Art.54 of the Limitation Act – Mere delay alone in filing the suit for specific performance, without reference to the conduct of the plaintiff, could not be a ground for refusing the said relief, when the suit was filed within the statutory time limit by the respondent-plaintiff – Respondent-plaintiff had not only issued notices within the period of six months of the agreement in question, calling defendant to perform his part of contract and conclude sale, he had also showed his readiness and willingness to perform the his part of contract by proving same by stepping into witness box – There was due compliance of s. 16(c) read with its explanation on part of the respondent to perform – No illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the High Court.Delay/Laches – Limitation - There is a distinction between limitation and delay and laches – Limitation is a ground for dismissing a suit even if the plaintiff is otherwise entitled to specific performance, while delay operates to determine the discretion and exercise under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, even if the suit is not dismissed on account of limitation – However, not one but several aspects have to be considered when the court, in terms of section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, exercises discretion, guided by judicial principles, sound and reasonable.
Judge	Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 1070
Petitioner	P. Daivasigamani
Respondent	S. Sambandan
SCR	[2022] 18 S.C.R. 199
Judgement Date	2022-10-12
Case Number	9006

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

P. Daivasigamani Vs. S. Sambandan

Please Log-in to view this content

P. Shyamala Vs. Gundlur Masthan

Laxman Tatyaba Kankate & Anr. Vs. Taramati Harishchandra Dhatrak

Silvey & Ors. Vs. Arun Varghese & Anr.

Aniglase Yohannan Vs. Ramlatha and Ors.

Pratap Lakshman Muchandi and Ors. Vs. Shamlal Uddavadas Wadhwa and Ors.

Nanjappan Vs. Ramasamy &anr

B. Vijaya Bharathi Vs. P. Savitri & Ors.

Janardhanam Prasad Vs. Ramdas

P. D'souza Vs. Shondrilo Naidu

P. Daivasigamani Vs. S. Sambandan

P. Daivasigamani Vs. S. Sambandan

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

P. Shyamala Vs. Gundlur Masthan

Laxman Tatyaba Kankate & Anr. Vs. Taramati Harishchandra Dhatrak

Silvey & Ors. Vs. Arun Varghese & Anr.

Aniglase Yohannan Vs. Ramlatha and Ors.

Pratap Lakshman Muchandi and Ors. Vs. Shamlal Uddavadas Wadhwa and Ors.

Nanjappan Vs. Ramasamy &anr

B. Vijaya Bharathi Vs. P. Savitri & Ors.

Janardhanam Prasad Vs. Ramdas

P. D'souza Vs. Shondrilo Naidu

P. Daivasigamani Vs. S. Sambandan