Specific Performance, Limitation and Judgment Writing
P filed a suit in 2024 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Mysuru, for specific performance of an agreement dated 1 March 2018, by which D agreed to sell 1 acre of agricultural land for Rs 20 lakh. P paid Rs 5 lakh as earnest money. The agreement was on plain paper, signed by both parties and attested by two witnesses. It fixed 31 December 2018 for execution of the sale deed; possession was to remain with D until registration. D denies the agreement and signature. P examined the scribe and one attesting witness; the stamp duty on the agreement is Rs 100, though the Karnataka Stamp Act requires higher duty. The suit was filed on 1 June 2024. P pleaded that he was ready and willing and had Rs 15 lakh in a bank account since 2018, but the bank statement produced is for 2023. D pleads limitation and want of readiness. The court has framed issues and heard arguments.
1. Frame the issues for judgment.
Read the worked answer
The issues should be: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves the agreement dated 1 March 2018 executed by the defendant? (2) Whether the agreement is inadmissible for want of sufficient stamp duty and, if so, its effect? (3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act? (4) Whether the plaintiff has proved continuous readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance or compensation? (6) What relief and costs? The issues must separate proof of the agreement from its admissibility and from the discretionary relief. The court should also frame an issue on the effect of the unregistered document, even though an agreement to sell does not require registration; the stamp objection is separate.
2. Discuss limitation and readiness and willingness.
Read the worked answer
Limitation is the strongest defence. Article 54 gives three years from the date fixed for performance or, if no date is fixed, from the date the plaintiff has notice of refusal. The agreement fixed 31 December 2018. The suit was filed on 1 June 2024, more than five years later. The plaintiff cannot use the defendant's mere denial in the written statement to create a fresh cause of action. If the plaintiff pleads that time was extended, he must prove a fresh agreement or acknowledgement. Readiness and willingness is a continuous requirement. The plaintiff must show that he had the means and was willing to perform from the date of the agreement until the suit. A bank statement for 2023 does not prove capacity in 2018, though oral evidence and other documents may. The payment of Rs 5 lakh earnest money is consistent with readiness but not conclusive. Because the suit is prima facie time-barred, the court should decide limitation first; if it holds the suit barred, readiness does not revive it. The understamped agreement can be impounded under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act and admitted after duty and penalty, but that does not cure limitation.
3. Draft the operative part of the judgment.
Read the worked answer
The operative part should be precise. If the court finds the agreement proved but the suit time-barred, the judgment should read: 'The suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 1 March 2018 is dismissed as barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance or compensation. The document dated 1 March 2018 is insufficiently stamped; the office is directed to impound it and send it to the Deputy Commissioner for recovery of deficit stamp duty and penalty under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Parties shall bear their own costs.' If the court also finds the agreement not proved, it should record that finding before dismissing. The decree should not grant possession or refund earnest money unless a separate claim for refund is tried; the plaintiff's remedy, if any, is a suit for refund, subject to limitation. The judgment should state reasons on each issue and not merely recite evidence.