The Telangana High Court recently condoned a delay of 3,358 days (about nine years) by a property buyer who hadn't paid the remaining sale amount. They instructed that the buyer should pay this amount along with 12% interest per year to finalize the sale. Interestingly, the seller admitted in court that the buyer had been living on the property all this time, even though the sale deed wasn't signed.
This judgement came from a case the buyer had filed back in 2010, asking the court to compel the seller to complete the sale. On December 29, 2011, the court ordered the buyer to pay the remaining sale price of Rs 8.1 lakh within 15 days from the date of the order to the seller.
Even though the seller never challenged this order, the buyer remained in possession of the property, even without a sale deed. After nine years, the property buyer wanted to pay his balance dues and execute the sale deed, but the seller pushed back, claiming that there had been a significant delay and it was now too late.
Though the seller initially opposed the sale citing the delay, according to the buyer, the seller later reached out and expressed his willingness to accept the remaining payment. However, he then avoided further communication. The buyer informed the court that he couldn't follow up on this as he got busy with his daughter's marriage and his retirement. The seller firmly denied ever meeting or discussing this arrangement with the buyer.
The Telangana High Court stated that since the seller did not file any appeal against the original case for specific performance regarding the property sale, he couldn't oppose the sale now after a nine-years delay on the buyer's part for paying the remaining amount.
The buyer argued before the high court that the specific performance decree is final since it was not challenged. He argued that if the court denies him the chance to deposit the remaining money, it would undermine the decree itself.
The Telangana High Court ruled that while Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to execution proceedings, a party in a specific performance matter can seek extension of time under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court added that merely quoting the wrong provision could not be a reason to deny the relief sought by the buyer, reported LiveLaw.
Thus the high court condoned the 3,358-day delay, and permitted the buyer to deposit the balance payment of Rs 8.1 lakh with 12% interest per annum from the date of decree till the date of deposit.
