AIR 2008 (NOC) 1620 (KAR.) ::2008 (5) ABR (NOC) 923 (KAR.) = 2008 (3) AIR KAR R 66 ::2008 (3) AJHAR (NOC) 711 (KAR.) ::2008 (3) AJHAR (NOC) 711 (KAR) ::2008 (3) AIR Kant HCR 66 ::2008 (3) AIR Kar R 66 ::2008 A I H C 2294 ::(2009) 1 CivLJ 223 ::(2008) 3 ICC 408 ::(2008) 5 Kant LJ 260

Karnataka High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. Abdul Nazeer , J

(A) Limitation Act (36 of 1963) Art. 54 — Suit for specific performance of contract — Limitation of 3 years — Expression ‘date fixed for performance’ in Art 54 does not require that a particular date from calendar must be mentioned in document — It is sufficient if basis of calculating date fixed for performance is found in document — Clause in agreement making it clear that sale shall be completed within a period of one month with reference to an event i e disposal of writ petition in favour of defendant — Limitation of filing suit would be governed by first part of Article 54 and not second part (Para 13,14)

(B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S. 19 (b)— Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S 3 — Enforceability of contract — Against parties and person claiming under them by subsequent title — Plaintiff entered into agreement with defendants 1 and 2 — Third defendant purchased said site from first defendant — Plaintiff’s case that third defendant had notice of agreement vide his son — Evidence however, showed that relationship of plaintiff with his son was not cordial — Third defendant cannot be said to have actual notice of agreement entered into between plaintiff with defendants 1 and 2 — Actual notice must be definite information given in course of negotiation by person interested in property — Third defendant had not wilfully abstained from making inquiry or search — Third defendant can be said to be bona fide purchaser of schedule site for value, without notice of prior agreement (Para 19,24,27)

(C) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S. 21 — Compensation in lieu of specific performance — Can be granted when contract between parties which has been broken and Court decides that specific performance ought not to be granted — Subsequent purchaser purchased property without notice of previous contract entered into between plaintiff and defendants — He cannot be made liable to pay compensation (Para 30,32)