# !>- AJAIB SINGH v. GURBAX SINGH & ORS

- **Citation:** [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1099
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1987-11-17
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3066 fof 1987
- **Bench:** Sabyasachi Mukharji, G.L. Oza
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ajaib-singh-v-gurbax-singh-ors-9693
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

B
Indian Contract Act, 1872: Agreement of sal~Specific performance of-Major portion of sale price paid by buyer-Possession of
property with buyer in part performance of agreement-Documents of
title not executed-Limitation bar pleaded-Held High Court erred in
denying specific performance on account of hardship without deciding C
whether claim was barred by limitation.
Under an agreement of sale entered into by respondents the appellant had paid the major portion of the agreed price long time ago and
the balance thereof that was to be paid at the time of execution of the
documents was a sum of Rs. 7 5 only. Possession of the premises was with D
the' appellant for all these years in part performance of the agreement.
Upon failure of the respondents to execute documents of title, the
appellant sought specific performance of the agreement. The respondents canvassed the question of limitation before the High Court. The
High Court, however, without deciding that question took the view that E
due to passage of time prices of lands had gone up sky high and it would
be unjust to enforce the agreement of sale.
Allowing the appeal by special leave,
HELD: The High Court exercised discretion on wrong principles. F
Without deciding the question whether the claim of the plaintiff was
barred by limitation or not it proceeded to refuse to grant the relief on
the ground that there has been good deal of delay and the parties would
suffer if specific performance of the agreement was granted. This
principle was not applicable to the facts of the case and the exercise of
discretion was not proper. The matter remanded to the High Court for G
decision in merits. [UOOG; E; llOlB)
Madamsetty Satyanarayana v. G. Yellogi Rao & Ors., [1965) 2
SCR 221; Dr. Jiwan Lal & Ors. v. Brij Mohan Mehra & Anr., [1973] 2
SCR 230 and Debendra Nath Manda! v. Sakhilal Kar & Ors., AIR 1950
Calcutta 526, referred to.
H
1099
I 100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ !988] I S.C.R.
A

## Text

!>-
AJAIB SINGH
A
v.
GURBAX SINGH & ORS.
NOVEMBER 17, 1987
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.)
B
Indian Contract Act, 1872: Agreement of sal~Specific performance of-Major portion of sale price paid by buyer-Possession of
property with buyer in part performance of agreement-Documents of
title not executed-Limitation bar pleaded-Held High Court erred in
denying specific performance on account of hardship without deciding C
whether claim was barred by limitation.
Under an agreement of sale entered into by respondents the appellant had paid the major portion of the agreed price long time ago and
the balance thereof that was to be paid at the time of execution of the
documents was a sum of Rs. 7 5 only. Possession of the premises was with D
the' appellant for all these years in part performance of the agreement.
Upon failure of the respondents to execute documents of title, the
appellant sought specific performance of the agreement. The respondents canvassed the question of limitation before the High Court. The
High Court, however, without deciding that question took the view that E
due to passage of time prices of lands had gone up sky high and it would
be unjust to enforce the agreement of sale.
Allowing the appeal by special leave,
HELD: The High Court exercised discretion on wrong principles. F
Without deciding the question whether the claim of the plaintiff was
barred by limitation or not it proceeded to refuse to grant the relief on
the ground that there has been good deal of delay and the parties would
suffer if specific performance of the agreement was granted. This
principle was not applicable to the facts of the case and the exercise of
discretion was not proper. The matter remanded to the High Court for G
decision in merits. [UOOG; E; llOlB)
Madamsetty Satyanarayana v. G. Yellogi Rao & Ors., [1965) 2
SCR 221; Dr. Jiwan Lal & Ors. v. Brij Mohan Mehra & Anr., [1973] 2
SCR 230 and Debendra Nath Manda! v. Sakhilal Kar & Ors., AIR 1950
Calcutta 526, referred to.
H
1099
I 100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ !988] I S.C.R.
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3066
fof 1987.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.1986 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in R.S. A. No. 163 of 1978.
Mala Ram Ghana and Dalveer Bhandari for the Appellant.
M.S. Gujral and Dr. Meera Aggarwal for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave granted.
The High Court in its judgment and order dated 9th July, 1986,
has observed that the question of limitation has been canvassed before
the High Court. The High Court expressed the view that there was a
lot of conflict between the various High Courts on the interpretation of
Article 54 of the Limitation Act which governed the point of limitation. The High Court, however, did not decide this question and
expressed the view that due to passage of time prices of lands had gone
up sky-high and it would be unjust to enforce the agreement of sale
entered into. In other words, it appears that without deciding the
question whether the claim of the plaintiff was barred by limitation or
not, the High Court exercised its discretion in refusing to grant the·
relief on the ground that there has been good deal of delay and the
parties would suffer if specific performance of the agreement was
granted. It appears from the facts that in this case the major portion of
the agreed price had been paid long time-ago and the balance thereof
was to be paid at the time of execution of the documents was a sum of
Rs. 75 only. It further appears that possession of the premises was with
the appellant for all these years in part performance of the agreement.
In those circumstances, the principle upon which the High Court refused to exercise its discretion, in our opi,nion, was not applicable and
such discretion was not proper. The High Court exercised discretion
on wrong principles. See in this connection M.adamsetty Satyanarayana
v. G. Yellogi Rao & Two others, [1965] 2 SCR 221; Dr. Jiwan Lal &
Ors. v. Brij Mohan Mehra & Another, [1973] 2 SCR 230 and see also
the observation in Debendra Nath Manda/ v. Sakhilal Kar & Ors.,
AIR 1950 Calcutta 526.
In that view of the matter, we cannot sustain the exercise of
discretion in the manner done by the High Court. This, however, does
't
--
·'i -
¥
--
'...-\
)---
AJAJil SINGH v. GURBAX SINGH (MUKHARJI, J.]
1101
not decide the matter because the High Court declined to go into the
facts and decide the question of limitation on merits, the High Court
took the view in exercise of its discretion. Since we are not sustaining
A
the High Court's exercise of discretion hence the order and the Judgment of the High Court are set aside but the matter is remanded to the
High Court for its decision on the merits. The matter should be dis8
posed of by the High Court as early as possible. The appeal is accord-
~ ingly allowed with no order as to costs.
P.S.S.
Appeal allowed.