Injunction

Prakash (Querist) 14 November 2023 This query is : Resolved
A property which was supposed to be transferred by B in favour of A vide agreement executed in 2007 (B has taken consideration and did not transfer the property in A’s name till date, even in 2023 !)is known as transferred to C by B and the C has already registered the same in their name and construction activities are started. Is there any scope of injunction against the B or C party ?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Quick Summary

If a seller hasn't transferred a property to you for over 16 years, despite receiving full payment, and has now sold it to a third party, you may still have legal recourse. While the delay might raise limitation issues, a court might consider your case, especially if you had possession and paid the full amount. You can file a suit for specific performance and seek an injunction, referencing Supreme Court rulings that clarify 'time essence' in contracts.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 15 November 2023
Since A was aware of the agreement and also non response of the seller/transferor , what was he doing till now i.e., for a period of over 16 years.
It is barred by limitation, but that will not prevent him from approaching court however it should be draft in such a way that the court is taking the case on its files

Advocate Bhartesh goyal (Expert) 15 November 2023
Since the possession of property had been given to A and B has received entire sale consideration and if time was not essence of contract then A can file suit for specific performance of contract and injunction against B .Since A has continuous cause of action so his suit will be maintainable.

Prakash (Querist) 15 November 2023
In the meanwhile, B has sold the property to another, C. Is A is left with any remedy…?

kavksatyanarayana (Expert) 15 November 2023
Though the property was sold by B, A should file a case in court with condonation of delay against B.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 15 November 2023
In a similar case decided by supreme court in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4072 OF 2022; 13 JANUARY, 2023
C. Haridasan versus Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup & Others
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell -
Supreme Court bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna delivers a
split verdict on whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of specific relief.
It was held that specifying the time for performance of an agreement is not sufficient to prove
that time was indeed the essence of the contract. That if time was the essence of the
agreement, either of the parties ought to have initiated due performance of the same within
the specified period. However, since neither of the parties to the agreement of sale had
initiated timely steps in pursuance of the said agreement, it was held that time was not the
essence of the contract.
Hence you may file a suit by referring the above context

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries