Property Purchaser Can't Seek Enforcement Of Sale Deed After Failing To Deposit Balance Amount For 20 Years: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a property purchaser cannot seek enforcement of a sale deed after failing to deposit the balance sale consideration for 20 years. In doing so the court quashed an order granting time to a purchaser, whose suit for specific performance was decreed, to deposit the balance sale amount after noting that he waited for 20 years to move the plea for extension of time to deposit the due amount. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Lal v. Jarnail Singh, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held,“The judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case of Ram Lal (Supra) clearly oust the case of plaintiff respondent as there is a willful negligence on the part of plaintiff in his performance to deposit the balance sale consideration within the specified period of time and further waiting for almost more than 20 years in moving the second application for extension of time for depositing the balance sale consideration.Length of delay and also the equities that have been created during the interregnum period is in favour of judgment debtor. In a suit for specific performance the court has to balance equity between the parties. Decreeing of suit is a preliminary decree as has been held by the Apex Court in the above noted judgments. The court which has passed the decree is vested with the jurisdiction to either rescind the contract/decree for non-payment/non deposit within the stipulated period or extend the period for making such payment/deposit. In the instant case, there is an unexplained delay on the part of the plaintiff respondent in completing his part of performance for depositing the balance sale consideration"The defendant Duliram Maurya entered into an agreement to sell a land in 1991 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 25000, of which Rs. 13000/- was paid on the same day by plaintiff Nandram who bought the property. The balance Rs. 12000 was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale-deed. Thereafter Nandram filed a suit for specific performance of sale agreement. The trial court dismissed the suit in 1998, holding that there had been no transaction for execution of a sale-deed and that the agreement was a device masking a loan taken by the defendant.The plaintiff's Civil Appeal was allowed on in 2003 and the suit was decreed and the court directed the defendant to execute the sale agreement within two months. The court further directed plaintiff buyer to deposit the balance consideration. The defendant seller filed a Second Appeal which remained pending before the High Court without any interim order. It was dismissed in September 2019. In the meantime the plaintiff buyer filed execution proceedings on August 6, 2012.After the second appeal was dismissed, the defendant moved application under Section 28 Specific Relief Act for dropping the execution proceedings initiated by the plaintiff. The plaintiff objected and filed applications on 17.11.2025 seeking extension of time to deposit the balance amount and sought condonation of the delay.For context, Section 28 permits a vendor to apply, in the same suit in which a decree for specific performance was made, to have the contract rescinded where the purchaser does not pay the purchase money within the period allowed by the decree or such further period as the court may allow.By order dated 23rd December 2025 the executing court rejected the defendant's application and allowed the plaintiff's application for extension of time to deposit balance amount on a cost of Rs. 1000. Against this the defendant-seller moved a revision plea which was dismissed; against the dismissal defendant moved the high court. Counsel for the defendant seller argued that the plaintiff buyer neither deposited the money nor moved for execution for nearly nine years after the decree, and the extension application filed thereafter was left pending. It was submitted that permitting a deposit more than 20 years later would only lead to a travesty of justice; specific performance being an equitable relief, the court had to be guided by principles of equity in deciding whether to rescind or to extend time.Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that Section 28 also provides for a decree holder to seek extension of time. It was submitted that the application moved when execution began in 2012 had remained pending, and execution was not pressed while the second appeal awaited decision. It was argued that the decree of 2003 merged in the second appellate judgment of 2019 and the period could not be counted from 2003. Rejecting the plaintiff's argument that execution was within the twelve-year period prescribed by the Limitation Act, the Court held“The said argument is totally misconceived as it is a case of specific performance where the suit was decreed by the first appellate court on 22.11.2003 granting one month time to plaintiff respondent to deposit the balance sale consideration.”Turning to the record of the second appeal, the Court noted that...

Property Purchaser Can't Seek Enforcement Of Sale Deed After Failing To Deposit Balance Amount For 20 Years: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

Property Purchaser Can't Seek Enforcement Of Sale Deed After Failing To Deposit Balance Amount For 20 Years: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers