Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(1) Whether in the agreement dated 04.4.1988, the time was essence of the contract and whether on the facts and evidence on record the limitation for filing suit for specific performance of contract was governed by Article 54 of the Limitation Act providing for three years for filing of suit from the date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has noticed that performance is refused?
(2) Whether the defendant No. 1 had refused to perform her part of contract earlier to the time fixed for due performance of contract and that the limitation would begin to run from the date of refusal, by constructive knowledge of raising of constructions by the subsequent purchasers?

11. If the plaintiff had constructive knowledge that the promisee defendant has breached the agreement by selling it before the time specified for its due performance, would it be reasonable to say that just because a time has been specified in the contract, the plaintiff must wait or could wait until the time for execution of the agreement arrived. In such event can the Court infer that the promisee had failed to perform her part of contract and thus limitation would begun to run from the date when such refusal came to the knowledge of the plaintiff. In such case the exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act to grant specific performance will come into question.