Sellers’ Heirs’ Bid To Undo Specific-Performance Decrees Fails: Madras HC Cites Unchallenged Payment Extension And 22-Month Delay After Learning Of Decrees

The respondents obtained decrees for specific performance in 2004 against the petitioners’ predecessors, requiring payment of balance consideration of ₹5,000 in each suit.

After the respondents failed to deposit the amounts within the time initially fixed, the executing court allowed their applications to extend time in 2017.

The petitioners, as legal representatives of one of the defendants, filed appeals in 2020 with applications to condone a delay of 5,551 days, and also sought rescission of the contracts under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The appellate court dismissed the delay applications, and the trial court dismissed the rescission applications.

The petitioners challenged those orders in four civil revision petitions.

They alleged collusion between the plaintiffs and their predecessors’ power agent, but acknowledged knowledge of the suits and execution proceedings by May 2018; they did not explain the further delay before filing appeals in March 2020.

Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 permits the court, in its discretion, to rescind a contract where a purchaser fails to comply with a decree for specific performance; however, the court retains power to extend the time fixed for payment, even after it has expired.

The Court relied on Chanda (Dead) through LRs v. Rattni (2007) 14 SCC 26, which recognises the court’s power under Section 28 to extend time and its discretion not to annul a decree.

Johri Singh v. Sukh Pal Singh (1989) 4 SCC 403, on the discretionary power under Section 148 CPC to enlarge a court-fixed period after its expiry.

P.R. Yelumalai v. N.M. Ravi (2015) 9 SCC 52, confirming that time for compliance may be extended after expiry.

The Court also applied the principle that fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved by cogent evidence; a mere affidavit, without testimony and cross-examination, is insufficient.

The Court found no adequate explanation for the delay between the petitioners’ asserted knowledge in May 2018 and the filing of appeals in March 2020.

Their allegations of fraud and collusion required proof in appropriate proceedings, but they had neither instituted proceedings to set aside the decrees on that basis nor adduced evidence in support of the allegations in the delay applications.

As to rescission, the respondents had obtained orders extending the time to deposit the balance consideration, and those orders had not been challenged.

Applying the authorities recognising the court’s power to extend time after expiry, the Court held that the petitioners could not seek rescission on the basis of non-payment within the original period while the extension orders remained in force.

It upheld the refusal to condone the delay in filing the appeals and rejected the challenges to the dismissal of the Section 28 applications because the orders extending time for payment had attained finality.

Connected civil miscellaneous petitions were closed; there was no order as to costs.