What is the effect of the rescission of an ex-parte decree for specific performance on the competence of the vendors to convey the property?

On the rescission attaining finality, the ex-parte decree is rendered unenforceable and there subsists no decree in favour of the agreement-holders. The vendors are therefore competent to validly convey their right, title and interest in the property, and a sale so made, though pendente lite, cannot be termed invalid once the order of rescission has become final.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — s.28 — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XX Rule 12A, s.100 — Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 137 — Decree for specific performance — Rescission and extension of time — Deposit within reasonable time — Finality of the rescission order — Specific Relief Act, 1963 — s.28 — Court not functus officio after a decree for specific performance — Held: A decree for specific performance is in the nature of a preliminary decree, and until the sale deed is executed in execution of the decree, the Court that passed it does not lose its jurisdiction nor become functus officio. The contract of sale is treated as a subsisting contract even after the decree, and Section 28 empowers the Court, in its discretion, either to rescind the contract or to extend the time to deposit the balance sale consideration. (¶18) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XX Rule 12A — Specific Relief Act, 1963 — s.28 — Deposit within a reasonable time where the decree fixes none — Held further: Where a decree for specific performance omits to specify the period for deposit as required by Order XX Rule 12A, the deposit must nonetheless be made within a reasonable time, and an unexplained delay disentitles the decree-holder. A delay of about four years, without any satisfactory explanation, cannot be treated as reasonable and justifies rescission of the decree under Section 28. (¶18, 20) Specific Relief Act, 1963 — s.28 — Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 137 — Finality of the rescission order — collateral challenge barred — Held further: Once an order rescinding the decree under Section 28 has attained finality, the review application and the civil revision petition against it having been dismissed, it cannot be reopened or reagitated in a subsequent suit. A plea that the Section 28 application was barred by Article 137 of the Limitation Act ought to have been raised in those proceedings and cannot be canvassed collaterally after the order has become final. (¶20, 21) Specific Relief Act, 1963 — s.28 — Effect of rescission — vendors competent to convey — Held further: On the rescission attaining finality, the ex-parte decree for specific performance was rendered unenforceable, leaving no subsisting decree in favour of the agreement-holders; the vendors were therefore competent to validly convey their right, title and interest, and the intervening sale, though pendente lite, cannot be termed invalid. Second Appeal dismissed and the concurrent decrees confirmed. (¶23, 26)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of RAJESWARI v. SAMPOORNAM — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India