Where no performance date is fixed, a specific-performance suit must be filed within three years of notice of refusal.

The appellant sought specific performance of an Agreement to Sell and related documents dated 3 August 2001, under which Kishan Lal had agreed to sell his one-third share in the suit property.

The agreement provided that a sale deed would be executed “if and when” it became permissible.

Kishan Lal later relinquished his share in favour of his brother, Nand Kishore, by deed dated 1 September 2003.

The appellant claimed she learned of that deed during rent-control proceedings and issued a notice seeking execution of the sale deed in July 2017.

The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court upheld that dismissal, including on limitation grounds.

The appellant’s second appeal challenged those decisions.

1. Whether the suit for specific performance, filed in 2017 under an agreement dated 2001 with no fixed date for performance, was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

2. Whether the Agreement to Sell could be enforced against Kishan Lal after he relinquished his share, and whether the appellant could obtain specific performance against his successor.

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that a contract for sale does not, by itself, create an interest in or charge on immovable property; transfer of ownership requires a registered instrument.

Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a specific-performance suit must be brought within three years from the date fixed for performance or, if no date is fixed, from when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.

Although time is not ordinarily the essence of a contract for sale of immovable property, performance must be sought within a reasonable time, assessed in light of the contract, the property and the surrounding circumstances.

The Court relied on Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani, (1993) 1 SCC 519; Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi, (2011) 12 SCC 18; and R. Kandasamy v. T.R.K. Sarawathy, 2024 INSC 884, including their guidance that courts should scrutinise prolonged inaction and readiness and willingness in specific-performance claims.

The agreement fixed no date for execution of the sale deed, but the appellant neither pleaded nor proved what prevented registration or when any impediment ended.

She waited nearly sixteen years before issuing a notice seeking performance.

The Court considered that she had notice of Nand Kishore’s ownership claim based on the relinquishment deed during the rent-control proceedings; even if limitation were taken to begin on 8 September 2006, the suit filed on 16 August 2017 was brought more than three years later and was therefore barred under Article 54.

The Court also observed that Kishan Lal had ceased to hold ownership rights after the relinquishment, and that the successor against whom enforcement might have been sought was not impleaded in the specific-performance suit.

It dismissed the appeal and disposed of the pending applications accordingly.