Decree For Execution Of Sale Deed Doesn’t Become Inexcutable Due To Absence Of Express Order Extending Time For Depositing Balance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court

The petition before the High Court was filed by the defendant in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of immovable property.

The Single Bench of Justice P. Krishna Kumar held, “Viewed in this backdrop, when the court ordered execution of the sale deed on the application filed by the respondent after receipt of the balance sale consideration and with notice to the petitioner, it amounts to implicitly extending the time fixed in the decree under Section 28(1) of the Act. It is true that extension of time is not automatic and that while doing so, the court must consider the circumstances under which the plaintiff failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated period. However, once the court has acted upon the request of the plaintiff on merit and has even executed the sale deed, it cannot be contended that the absence of an express order extending time renders the decree inexecutable.”

Advocate Sunil Nair Palakkat represented the Petitioner, while Advocate V. T. Madhavanunni represented the Respodnent.

Factual Background

The suit was decreed in 2001, directing the petitioner to execute the sale deed upon the respondent/plaintiff depositing the balance sale consideration of ₹10,000 within one month. The respondent failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated period. He deposited the amount belatedly and got the sale deed executed through the court. Alleging non-compliance with the time stipulation in the decree, and contending that no extension of time was granted by the Court, the petitioner filed an application seeking rescission of the contract. By the order impugned in the petition, the Sub Judge dismissed the application on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the respondent failed to deposit the amount within the time stipulated in the decree. He made the deposit within one year and simultaneously filed an application seeking execution and registration of the sale deed through court. “The court, after issuing notice to the petitioner, allowed the application and the sale deed was executed through its process. The petitioner, sought rescission only upon the respondent initiating execution proceedings for delivery of possession, by which time nearly eight years had elapsed. The application is, therefore, hopelessly barred by limitation. The application seeking recission, was rightly dismissed by the court”, it added.

Reference was made to the judgment in K. Kalpana Saraswathi v. P. S. S. Somasundaram Chettiar (1980), wherein the Apex Court has held that even at the appellate stage, the time for making the deposit can be extended so as to enable the plaintiff to avail the benefit of the agreement for sale in his favour. Further referring to Ishwar (Since Deceased) Thr. LRs v. Bhim Singh (2024) wherein it has been held that this power can be exercised even by the Execution Court, the Bench affirmed that this power may, in appropriate cases, be exercised ex post facto as well after receiving the amount that ought to have been deposited earlier.

Considering that the Court had acted upon the request of the plaintiff on merit and had even executed the sale deed, the Bench held that it could not be contended that the absence of an express order extending time rendered the decree inexecutable. Thus, dismissing the petition, the Bench upheld the impugned order.

Cause Title: Puthuparambil Raju v. Kachirayil Joseph (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:24284)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Sunil Nair Palakkat, K.N. Abhilash, M.A. Ahammad Saheer

Respondent: Advocates V. T. Madhavanunni, V.A.Satheesh

Click here to read/download Order