Decided on January 04,1960



- (1.) Two questions of importance arise in this second appeal which lias been filed by the Plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract, embodied in a compromise decree for sale of land and building' or of the Defendant's interest therein. One raises the question of construction of Section 15 of the Indian Limitation Act and the other the question of equity as reflected in the conduct of the Plaintiff who is the person seeking specific performance. Both the questions were answered in favour of the present Plaintiff by the trial court, which decreed her suit. Both of them, however, have been answered against her by the learned lower appellate court and the suit has been dismissed in appeal. Against this dismissal, the present second appeal is directed.
(2.) The relevant facts are practically not in dispute and they may be, briefly stated as follows:
(3.) The Defendant Respondent Satyendra Nath Das is a transferee of the suit property from his vendor Kanai Lal Mitra under a kobala, dated January 4, 1944. The said vendor, Kanai Lal, obtained the suit property under a previous conveyance from the present Appellant Mrinalini Debi on February 28, 1940. On the aforesaid date of his purchase, namely, February 28, 1940, Kauai Lal, in his return, agreed to reconvey the suit property to his vendor, the present Appellant Mrinalini, on receipt of a sum of Rs. 2,500 within March 1, 1942. In the said agreement, there was also a stipulation that until the reconveyance, Mrinalini would be paying to Kanai Lal a certain amount by way of rent in respect of the disputed property. There was, however, no payment, or reconveyance within the above stipulated time and, as Mrinalini continued in possession, Satyendra in May 1944 sued her for recovery of arrears of rent stipulated to be paid as aforesaid, in S.C.C. Suit No. 17 of 1944. During the pendency of the above suit, on November 15, 1944, Mrinalini in her turn instituted Title Suit No. 152 of 1944 against Satyendra for a declaration inter alia that the transaction of February 28, 1940 was not a sale with a condition of repurchase but really a mortgage, made and evidenced by the two documents, the kobala and the agreement, referred to above and bearing the date February 28, 1940. On December 18, 1944, the parties Satyendra and Mrinalini entered into a compromise in the aforesaid pending S.C.C. Suit No. 17 of 1944 whereby Satyendra agreed to convey his interest in the suit properly to Mrinalini on receipt of a sum of Rs. 3,400 by January 18, 1945. Mrinalini's suit, however, namely, Title Suit No. 152 of 1944, remained pending until April 6, 1950, when it was eventually dismissed. In the meantime, certain events of importance had happened and we shall presently refer to them immediately below.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.