Whether Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 can be invoked to give an agreement holder twelve years to recover advance amount?

No. Section 55(6)(b) provides for a charge for purchase money properly paid in anticipation of delivery, deals with the statutory consequences of the transaction of sale, and does not create an automatic proprietory security immediately after an agreement of sale is executed. Article 62 presupposes the existence of a charge and prescribes a limitation not for creating a security but for enforcing the security, so it cannot be made applicable to enlarge the limitation period where the cause of action is traceable to a contract.

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54 — Article 62 — Article 113 — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.54 — s.55(6)(b) — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11 — Refund of advance amount — Contractual right and proprietory right — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.54 — Agreement for sale — Contractual right, not proprietory right — Held: An agreement for sale creates a contractual right and a completed sale creates a proprietory right, and the Scheme of the Act clearly makes a distinction between the contractual claims and proprietory claims. (¶16, 20) Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 62 — Charge upon immovable property — Presupposes existence of a charge — Held further: Article 62 presupposes the existence of a charge and prescribes limitation not for creating a security but for enforcing the security; it cannot be made applicable to enlarge the limitation period where the cause of action is traceable to a contract. (¶17, 19) Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 113 — Refund of advance amount — Three years from the right to sue — Held further: Where the purchaser seeks only refund of the advance amount, the claim is contractual in nature and the residuary Article 113 will apply, three years from the date when the right to sue accrues. (¶20) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Bar of limitation evident on the plaint — Held further: Where a plain reading of the averments made in the plaint shows the suit to be hopelessly barred by limitation, the Court can reject the plaint without the rigmarole of a trial. Civil Revision Petition allowed. (¶21, 23)

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

Read the full text of S.M.SELVARAJ v. D.RAMAKRISHNAN — 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