Chetty v Chetty (CS168/2011) [2018] SCSC 8278 (7 October 2018)

Chetty v Chetty (CS168/2011) [2018] SCSC 8278 (7 October 2018)

The action is a personal action for specific performance of an alleged verbal agreement, subject to a five-year prescription period under Article 2271 of the Civil Code. The action was filed more than nine years after the cause of action arose, with no evidence of interruption of prescription. The alleged prete-nom (back-letter) agreement does not meet the formal requirements of Article 1321(4) of the Civil Code. The claim is time-barred and dismissed.

Citation
[2018] SCSC 8278
Parties
Plaintiff: Kaliaperumal Deivanayaham Chetty; Defendant: Krishnamurthy Chetty
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
7 October 2018
Case Number
CS168/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Plaint dismissed as time-barred
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Prescription (limitation of Actions), Verbal Agreements, Immovable Property, Back Letter Agreements
Source Language
English
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Specific Performance Prescription (limitation of Actions) Verbal Agreements Immovable Property Back Letter Agreements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kaliaperumal Deivanayaham Chetty

Plaintiff

Krishnamurthy Chetty

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's action is a personal action subject to prescription under Article 2271 of the Civil Code
  2. 2 Whether the action is time-barred
  3. 3 Whether there was a valid prete-nom (back-letter) agreement regarding the parcels of land

Ratio Decidendi

The action is a personal action for specific performance of an alleged verbal agreement, subject to a five-year prescription period under Article 2271 of the Civil Code. The action was filed more than nine years after the cause of action arose, with no evidence of interruption of prescription. The alleged prete-nom (back-letter) agreement does not meet the formal requirements of Article 1321(4) of the Civil Code. The claim is time-barred and dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaint dismissed as time-barred

Orders

  • Plaintiff's case is dismissed with costs