The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order allowing a buyer to deposit the balance sale consideration more than 20 years after a specific-performance decree. The Court held that prolonged inaction and failure to comply with the decree can justify rescinding the contract.
What happened in this case?
The dispute dates back to 1991, when Duliram Maurya agreed to sell land to Nandram for ₹25,000. Nandram paid ₹13,000 upfront, with the remaining ₹12,000 to be paid when the sale deed was executed.
Nandram later filed a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement. The trial court dismissed the suit in 1998, but the first appellate court reversed that decision in 2003 and directed Maurya to execute the sale deed.
Nandram was required to deposit the remaining sale consideration within one month.
He did not do so.
The delay continued for years
Maurya filed a second appeal in the High Court in 2004. No interim order was passed in the appeal, and it was eventually dismissed in 2019.
Meanwhile, Nandram initiated execution proceedings in 2012, nearly nine years after the decree. He had also sought an extension of time to deposit the balance amount, but the application remained pending.
After the second appeal was dismissed in 2019, Nandram did not seek another extension until November 2025.
By then, more than 20 years had passed since the specific-performance decree.
The executing court allowed the extension on payment of ₹1,000 as costs. A subsequent revision was also dismissed.
Maurya then approached the Allahabad High Court.
What did the High Court decide?
The High Court set aside both earlier orders and allowed Maurya’s petition.
The Court examined Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which deals with rescission of contracts where a decree for specific performance has been passed but the purchaser fails to pay the amount within the time specified.
The Court noted that the power to extend the payment period is discretionary. A court does not automatically cancel a decree merely because the buyer missed the deadline. At the same time, there is also no automatic extension simply because the buyer eventually offers to make the payment.
The conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the delay have to be considered.
Long delay was important
In this case, the High Court found that Nandram had not shown sufficient diligence in completing his part of the transaction.
The Court noted that he waited almost nine years before initiating execution proceedings. His application for extension filed in 2012 was never pursued to a decision. After the second appeal was dismissed in 2019, he waited another six years before seeking an extension again.
The Court held that this conduct showed a lack of intention to complete his part of the contract within the required period.
The Court also considered the principle that specific performance is an equitable relief. This means the court has to consider the conduct of both sides and balance the equities before deciding whether to extend the time or rescind the decree.
What does this mean for you?
If you have obtained a court decree requiring a property transaction to be completed, the decree does not mean that you can wait indefinitely to fulfil your own obligations.
A decree for specific performance can continue to be dealt with by the court until the sale deed is executed. The court can extend the time for payment in appropriate cases.
However, the length of the delay, your conduct, the reason for the delay and the circumstances that have developed during that period can all influence the court’s decision.
The Supreme Court decisions referred to in this judgment also make it clear that every day’s delay does not necessarily have to be explained as it would under an application for condonation of delay. The important question is whether your conduct indicates that you were unwilling or negligent in completing your part of the contract.
In this case, the Allahabad High Court found the delay to be significant enough to justify rescinding the decree.
Advance amount to be returned
Since the High Court set aside the orders allowing the delayed deposit, it directed Maurya to return the ₹13,000 advance received under the 1991 agreement.
The amount is to be returned to Nandram within one month, along with 6% interest from the date the advance was received.
The judgment therefore brings the long-running dispute over the property transaction to an end by restoring the advance payment rather than allowing the sale to proceed after more than two decades of delay.
