Specific Performance Decree Enforced: Supreme Court Allows Execution Despite Delay

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in favor of the plaintiff in Ram Lal vs. Jarnail Singh (Now Deceased) Through LRs & Ors., emphasizing that mere delay in depositing the balance sale consideration does not render a decree for specific performance inexecutable. The ruling sets an important precedent for the execution of decrees under the Specific Relief Act.

Background of the Case

The dispute stemmed from an agreement to sell agricultural land in Bathinda, Punjab, between the plaintiff, Ram Lal, and the defendants. The plaintiff sought specific performance of the agreement, which was decreed in his favor on 20-01-2012 by the trial court. The decree directed the defendants to execute a sale deed upon the plaintiff depositing the balance sale consideration within two months.

The defendants appealed the judgment, but their first appeal was dismissed by the District Court on 21-04-2015. However, the plaintiff did not immediately seek execution of the decree or deposit the balance sale amount.

Execution Proceedings and High Court’s Ruling

In 2017, the plaintiff filed an execution petition, seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideration. The executing court granted the request and directed the defendants to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff subsequently deposited Rs. 4,87,000/- on 20-05-2019.

The defendants challenged this decision before the High Court, arguing that the decree had become inexecutable due to the delay in deposit. The High Court agreed and set aside the executing court’s order, ruling that the delay of nearly four years indicated a lack of bona fide intent.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Ram Lal)

The petitioner’s counsel argued that:

The High Court erred in holding that the decree was inexecutable.
Under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, a decree for specific performance can be executed within 12 years.
The defendants never filed an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act to rescind the contract.
The balance sale consideration was eventually deposited, demonstrating the plaintiff’s willingness to comply with the decree.

Petitioner’s counsel contended:

“Mere delay in depositing the balance sale consideration does not render the decree inexecutable unless there is a willful default.”

Respondents’ Arguments (Jarnail Singh & Ors.)

The defendants’ counsel argued:

The plaintiff failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the two-month period specified by the trial court.
After the appeal was dismissed in 2015, the plaintiff should have immediately acted to deposit the balance amount.
There was an unreasonable delay of nearly four years, which showed a lack of genuine intent.
The trial court’s time limit for deposit should have been strictly followed.

Respondents’ counsel contended:

“Since the plaintiff failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time, the decree became inexecutable.”

Supreme Court’s Analysis

A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan reviewed the matter and made the following key observations:

“The appellate court’s decree supersedes the trial court’s decree. Since the appellate court did not set a new deadline for deposit, the plaintiff had a reasonable period to comply.”
“A decree for specific performance is preliminary in nature, and courts retain jurisdiction to modify timelines as needed.”
“The defendants never filed for rescission of the contract under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, which implies that they accepted the validity of the decree.”
“The balance sale consideration was deposited before the execution proceedings concluded, demonstrating good faith.”
“Courts have discretionary power to extend the time for deposit even after the stipulated period lapses.”

The Supreme Court referred to several key precedents, including:

Prem Jeevan v. K.S. Venkata Raman (2017) – Held that failure to deposit within the prescribed period does not automatically render a decree inexecutable.
V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm v. C. Alagappan (1999) – Recognized that courts can extend the time for deposit in the interest of justice.
Ramankutty Guptan v. Avara (1994) – Affirmed that courts retain discretion to extend timelines for decree execution.

Final Judgment and Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling and restored the executing court’s order. The key directives were:

The balance sale consideration already deposited shall be released to the defendants with accumulated interest.
The plaintiff must pay simple interest at 9% per annum for the delayed period.
The sale deed shall be executed in favor of the plaintiff without further delay.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that delays in execution proceedings do not automatically invalidate a decree for specific performance. Courts have the discretion to extend timelines, especially when the decree holder acts in good faith. The ruling ensures that technicalities do not defeat substantive justice and protects the rights of decree holders.

This decision serves as a crucial precedent for property disputes and the execution of decrees under the Specific Relief Act.

Petitioner Name: Ram Lal.
Respondent Name: Jarnail Singh (Now Deceased) Through LRs & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan.
Place Of Incident: Bathinda, Punjab.
Judgment Date: 25-02-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: ram-lal-vs-jarnail-singh-(now-d-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-25-02-2025.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by J.B. Pardiwala
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Mahadevan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category