ROJASARA RAMJIBHAI DAHYABHAI versus JANI NAROTTAMDAS LALLUBHAI (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR.

ROJASARA RAMJIBHAI DAHYABHAI versus JANI NAROTTAMDAS LALLUBHAI (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR.

The agreement to sell in question was not a contingent contract. It contained an express and implied obligation on the part of the appellant to do whatever was necessary, including obtaining relevant permissions, to complete the transfer of the property. As the appellant had ultimately obtained the requisite permissions and occupancy rights, the respondents were entitled to specific performance. The cause of action arose only when such permission was granted, making the suit timely.

Parties
Appellant: R.R. Dahyabhai; Respondent: Jani Narottamdas Lallubhai; Respondent: Thakur Dhirajlal Dhaneshvar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 April 1986
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal by Certificate From the Gujarat High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of the High Court decreeing specific performance upheld.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Contingent Contracts, Limitation, Vendor's Obligations, Estoppel
Contract Law Property Law Specific Relief Specific Performance Contingent Contracts Limitation Vendor's Obligations Estoppel

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.R. Dahyabhai

Appellant

Jani Narottamdas Lallubhai

Respondent

Thakur Dhirajlal Dhaneshvar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal by Certificate From the Gujarat High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract for sale was a contingent contract and had become incapable of performance
  2. 2 Whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement to sell in question was not a contingent contract. It contained an express and implied obligation on the part of the appellant to do whatever was necessary, including obtaining relevant permissions, to complete the transfer of the property. As the appellant had ultimately obtained the requisite permissions and occupancy rights, the respondents were entitled to specific performance. The cause of action arose only when such permission was granted, making the suit timely.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of the High Court decreeing specific performance upheld.

Orders

  • Suit for specific performance decreed in favour of the respondents.
  • Respondents entitled to costs throughout.