Supreme Court Grants Specific Performance for 1/11th School Land Share, Sets Aside High Court and Trial Court Orders

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard appeals challenging the Kerala High Court’s dismissal of a suit for specific performance and an interim order relating to management of a higher secondary school. The appeals arose from the plaintiff-appellant’s claim for conveyance of a 1/11th share in three acres thirty-five cents of land on which Aleemul Islam Higher Secondary School stood, after an agreement for sale and subsequent disputes over power of attorney, limitation and readiness to perform.

The Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 3894 of 2022, set aside the concurrent judgments of the trial Court and the High Court, and granted a decree of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff-appellant for the 1/11th share. The Court held that the defendant–respondent’s affidavit dated 30 April 2013 (Exh. A5) ratified the acts of her brother, who acted as power of attorney holder, and recorded her “unequivocal no-objection” to transfer of ownership to the appellant; accordingly, limitation began to run from that affidavit and the suit was instituted within time. The Court directed the trial Court to determine the balance sale consideration, apply simple interest at 9% thereon, and ordered the appellant to deposit the amount within two months for execution of a registered sale deed. The Supreme Court also allowed Civil Appeal No. 3895 of 2022 and set aside the High Court’s interim order that had vested school management with the District Education Officer, observing that, in light of the decree for specific performance, there was no further need for the interim arrangement. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “As the execution of the affidavit (Exh. A5) is not in dispute, the period of limitation would commence from the said date, i.e., 30th April, 2013. We have no hesitation in holding that the suit was instituted within the prescribed period of limitation, reckoned from the date of the affidavit. The said affidavit (Exh. A5) not only ratifies the acts performed by the power of attorney holder Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal but also records the unequivocal no-objection of the executant–defendant to transfer the ownership of the property in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.”

Background

The dispute concerned a registered partition share that devolved upon nine legal heirs of the late Seethi Thangal, including respondent Sakeena Beevi. An unregistered power of attorney in favour of the eldest son (Muhammed Rafi Thangal) preceded a registered power of attorney in favour of the respondent’s son (Rasheeq Ahmed). On 14 May 2007 Muhammed Rafi Thangal executed an agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff-appellant for Rs.2.70 crore, with Rs.25 lakh paid as advance; the agreement was extended on three occasions. The respondent published a notice purportedly revoking the unregistered power of attorney on 14 November 2012, but on 30 April 2013 she executed an affidavit (Exh. A5) ratifying the power of attorney and the acts carried out thereunder and stating she had “no objection to perform all acts, deeds and things as assigned in the said Power of Attorney” and would be “personally bound” by its terms.

The trial Court dismissed the suit primarily on limitation and denied refund of the advance; the High Court, while reversing certain findings, dismissed the appeal on the grounds of lack of readiness and willingness by the plaintiff and time-bar under Article 54 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court found that the affidavit of 30 April 2013 was neither disputed nor the deponent cross-examined, and that the act of ratification and no-objection revived or fixed the point from which limitation ran. The Court held that payments and subsequent acceptance by eight co-sharers, and the sworn affidavit, established the appellant’s readiness and willingness. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, directed determination and deposit of the balance consideration with 9% simple interest, and ordered execution of the registered sale deed upon compliance. The Court further set aside the High Court’s interim management order in view of the decree for specific performance. No costs were awarded.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3894 OF 2022; CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3895 OF 2022; Citation: 2026 INSC 35 Case Title: Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji v. Sakeena Beevi Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Gaurav Agrawal, Senior Counsel (for plaintiff-appellant) For the Respondent(s): Ms. Menaka Guruswamy, Senior Counsel (for defendant-respondent)