Full Name		Full Name is required
Email ID		Email ID required Invalid Email is ID
(this email-id will be treated as your User ID also)
Address
City		City required
Mobile No		Mobile No is required Invalid Mobile No
	* Mobile No is required for verification of identity

Head Note

The Limitation Act, 1963  - Article 54 , Indian Contract Act, 1872  - Section 55

Specific Performance - Time Essence of the Contract - As per unregistered agreement to sell of the suit schedule property plaintiff has agreed for payment of the balance sale consideration amount within nine months from the date of execution of the agreement to sell - Plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract regarding the balance consideration within the period stipulated in the agreement - This clause falls within the first part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963- Notice issued by the plaintiff only after one year - Courts below have ignored this important aspect of the matter while answering the contentious Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and granted decree of specific performance in respect of the suit schedule property aside - Impugned judgments and decrees of the High Court and the trial court liable to be set aside and the suit dismissed.

The Specific Relief Act, 1963  - Section 16 , The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Order VI Rule (3)

Clause 3 of Form No. 47 in Appendix 'A' - Specific Performance - Ready and Willing to Perform Contract - Plea on behalf of the appellant that pleadings of the plaintiff is not in conformity with Order 6 Rule 3 CPC, clause 3 of Form No. 47 in Appendix 'A' - By a careful reading of paragraph 6 of the plaint makes it very clear that the averment as provided under clause 3 is not in stricto sensu complied with by the plaintiff - Held that the plaintiff has not complied with the legal requirement which is mandatory as provided under Section 16 (c) of the Act, 1963 - Original suit dismissed.

The Specific Relief Act, 1963  - Section 19

Specific Performance - Bona Fide Purchaser - Both the Courts below have erroneously recorded an erroneous finding on the non-existent fact holding that the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff is a registered document which, in fact, is not true - Defendant Nos. 12 to 15 before entering into the agreement with defendant Nos. 1 to 11 have made proper verification from the competent authority to purchase the part of the suit schedule property and got the agreement of sale (Exhibit B-1) executed in their favour, from defendant Nos. 1 to 11 and thereafter, they got the sale deed registered by paying sale consideration amount, therefore, the reliance placed upon Section 19(b) of the Act as they being the bona fide purchasers, thespecific performance of contract cannot be enforced against the transferees - Defendant Nos. 12 to 15 being the transferee as they have purchased the suit schedule property for value and have paid the money in good faith and without notice of the original contract - Both the Courts below have omitted to consider this important piece of pleadings as also the material evidence on record thereby the concurrent finding recorded on the contentious issues has been rendered erroneous in law and is liable to be set aside - Impugned judgments and decrees of the High Court and the trial court liable to be set aside and the suit dismissed.

Topic(s)-Specific Performance - Bona Fide Purchaser - Suit dismissed