2016 AIR CC 929 (KAR) ::2016 (1) AKR 753 ::(2016) 2 ICC 662 ::(2016) 2 KCCR 1389

Karnataka High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): B. Veerappa , J

( A ) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S. 61 — Documentary evidence — Mere marking of exhibit does not dispense with proof of document. (Paras15)

( B ) Limitation Act (36 of 1963) Art. 54 — Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Question of limitation considered by both lower Courts and negatived contention of plaintiffs — No evidence to prove sale deed — Suit filed after 44 years to enforce agreement — Barred by limitation — Contention of plaintiffs that objection was not raised when agreement of sale in question was marked and no defence was taken in written statement with regard to limitation — Cannot be accepted — Law of limitation is question of law. Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), S. 100. (Paras1920)

( C ) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S. 16 (c) — “Readiness and willingness” to perform — Plaintiff must allege and prove a continuous “readiness and willingness” to perform contract on his part from date of contract till institution of suit. (Paras21)

( D ) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S. 20 — Suit for specific performance — Limitation — Agreement to sell property — Condition that since consolidation scheme was applying to village, after obtaining permission to sell property from the concerned authority, owners would execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs — Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act came to be abolished in year 1980 — Till then no steps were taken by plaintiffs — Suit filed only after lapse of 44 years — Held, that suit is hopelessly barred by limitation as contemplated under Art. 54 of the law of Limitation Act, 1963. Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Art. 54. (Paras26)