s the event of redemption happened
The doc trine of id certum est quod certum reddi potest is clearly applicable to the case
290D E  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 4754 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 1751989 of the Rajasthan High Court in SB Civil Revision Petition No 450 of 1988
VM Tarkunde BL Kachhawan and Badridas Sharma for the Appelant
Aruneshwar Gupta and section Kumar for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA J
Special leave is granted
This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the re spondent against her brother the appellant for specific performance of an alleged contract of sale dated 2361965 in respect of a house
The property was under a mortgage and according to the plaintiff s case the defendant had agreed to execute a deed of sale on the redemption of the mort 289 gage by her which she did in 1970
In spite of her repeated demands the defendant failed to respect the agreement which necessitated the institution of the suit
The defendant appellant besides pleading limitation denied the agreement as also the plaintiff s allegation that she had redeemed the mortgage
The question of limitation was taken up by the trial court as a preliminary issue and decided in favour of the plaintiff
The order has been confirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment
The plaintiff served a notice in July 1984 demanding specific performance before filing the suit
It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that since the alleged agreement is said to have been executed in June 1965 the suit is barred by limitation and alternatively even count ing the period of limitation from the alleged redemption in 1970 the suit has been filed after more than 14 years that is long after the expiry of three years  period prescribed under Article 54 of the of 1963
The High Court has rejected the argument holding that since the cause of action of the suit was dependent on the redemption of the mortgage and no period was fixed within which it was neces sary for the respondent to have redeemed the mortgage it cannot be said that a date was fixed  within the meaning of the third column of Article 54 which reads thus Description period of Time from which of suit limitation period begins to run 54
For specific three years The date fixed for the per performance
formance or if no such date is fixed when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused
 As the notice preceding the suit was admittedly served within three years the defendant s plea of limitation was rejected
The relevant provisions in the alleged agreement of sale as quoted in the judgment of the trial court reads as follows 290 This house is under mortgage with Jethmal Bastimal for Rs 1000
When you will get this house the description of which is given below redeemed from Ms Jeth Mat Bastimal and take the papers of the registry in your pos session on that day I will have the sale deed of the said house written executed and registered in your favour emphasis supplied The question is whether a date was fixed  for the perform ance of the agreement and in our view the answer is in the affirmative
It is true that a particular date from the calander was not mentioned in the document and the date was not ascertainable originally but as soon as the plaintiff redeemed the mortgage it became an ascertained date
If the plaintiff had immediately after the redemption flied the suit could it be thrown out on the ground that she was not entitled to the specific performance asked for We do not think so
She would have been within her rights to assert that she had performed her part of the contract and was entitled to insist that her brother should complete his part
The agreement is a typical illustration of a contin gent contract within the meaning of section 31 of the and became enforceable as soon as the event of redemption by the plaintiff hereself happened
We agree with the view of the Madras High Court in R Muniswami Goundar and Another vs
BM Shamanna Gouda and Others expressed in slightly different circum stances
The doctrine of id certurn est quod certum reddi potest is clearly applicable to the case before us which in the language of Herbert Broom in his book dealing with legal maxims is that certainty need not be ascertained at the time for if in the fluxion of time a day will arrive which will make it certain that is sufficient
A similar question had arisen in Duncombe vs The Brighton Club and Norfolk Hotel Company  relied upon in the Madras case
Under an agreement the plaintiff had supplied some furniture to the defendant for which payment was made but after some delay
He claimed interest
The rule at Common Law did not allow interest in such a case and the plaintiff in support of his claim relied upon a statutory provision which could come to his aid only if the price was payable at a certain time
Blackburn J observed that he did not have the slightest hasitation in saying that the agreement contemplated a particular day which when the goods were delivered would be ascertained and then the money would be payable at a certain time but rejected the plaintiff s demand on the ground that the price did not become payable by the written instrument at a certain time
The other learned Judges did not agree with him and held that the statute did 291 not require that the document should specify the time of payment by mentioning the day of payment
If it specified the event upon which the payment was to be made and if the time of event was capable of being ascertained the require ments of the section were satisfied
The same is the posi tion in the case before us
The requirement of Article 54 is not that the actual day should necessarily be ascertained upon the face of the deed but that the basis of the calcu lation which was to make it certain should be found therein
We accordingly hold that under the agreement the date for the defendant to execute the sale deed was fixed although not by mentioning a certain date but by a reference to the happening of a certain event namely the redemption of the mortgage and immediately after the redemption by the plaintiff the defendant became liable to execute the sale deed which the plaintiff was entitled to enforce
The period of limitation thus started running on that date
The case is therefore covered by the first part of Article 54 third column and not the second part
The learned counsel for the respondent relied on several decisions in support of the opinion of the High Court in the impugned judgment but they do not appear to help him
In Sathula Venkanna vs Namuduri Venkatakrishnayya and Another  it was observed that in cases where a right to enforce specific performance vests in a third party to whom the ascertainment of the date on which performance becomes due need not necessarily be known the doctrine certum est quod certum reddi potest does not apply
Without expressing their final opinion the learned Judges observed that it might be right to apply the doctrine be tween the actual parties to the contract who would get the benefit and be subject to the liabilities under that con tract but in cases where a person is entitled to bring a suit on the contract who may not and need not and very likely may not be aware of the date becoming fixed the doctrine could not apply
In Kruttiventi Mallikharjuna Rao vs Vemuri Pardhasaradhirao AIR 1944 Madras 2 18 the vendor promised to execute the sale deed when both of his brothers who were studying elsewhere returned to the village
It was held that it was not a case where it could be said that a date was fixed for the performance of the contract as the event mentioned therein was too indefinite to be regarded as fixing a date
The performance was dependant on both the brothers of the vendor coming to the village in which the intending purchaser had no say at all
Apart from the ques tion of limitation the defendant could not effectively rely upon such a clause to defeat the very contract
In Kashi Prasad vs Chhabi Lal and Others AIR 1933 Allahabad 4102 the plaintiff created two usufructuary mortgages and there after a third mortgage in 292 favour of the defendants for a sum of Rs8500
Out of this sum an amount of Rs6000 was left with the mortgagees for payment to the earlier creditors
The suit was instituted on the allegation that the defendants had failed to redeem the earlier mortgages
The plaintiff prayed for a direction to the defendants to redeem the mortgages
The document did not indicate as to the time when the defendants were obliged to redeem the earlier mortgages and a plea of limitation was taken on the ground that the date was fixed by necessary implication and could be ascertained by reference to the surrounding circumstances
In this background the court observed that the use of the word fixed  implies that it should be fixed definitely and should not be left to be gathered from surrounding circumstances of the case
All these cases are clearly distinguishable
For the reasons mentioned above the impugned judg ments of the High Court and the trial court are set aside and the suit is dismissed
The appeal is accordingly al lowed but the parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout
PSS Appeal allowed


Summary:
The Petitioners in first two Writ Petitions are Reserve Trained Pool Telephone Operators RTPTOS of Delhi and Bombay Mahanagar Telephones who are seeking directions that after their absorption as regular employees following the implementation of the directions of this Court dated 2871986 in an earlier Writ Petition No 11764 of 1985 filed by the All India Telegraph Engineering Employees Union Class III of Bombay Telephones they are entitled to be brought on par with the regular Staff for grant of all other service benefits as well since they have been performing the same duties as performed by regular operators
The other two Petitions pertain to the Department of Posts
One is by the Reserve Trained Pool Operators RTPOS and the other by the Substitute Employees and Casual Labour ers in that Department
While the RTPOS have claimed relief of being placed at par with regular permanent or temporary employees in the matter of service conditions the substi tute employees and casual labourers claim that they be paid the same emoluments as the regular employees
Disposing of the Petitions this Court HELD The scheme known as Casual Labourers Grant of Temporary Status in Regularisation Scheme has been formu lated and put into operation from 1101989
Hence no fur ther specific direction is necessary as regards applicants covered by the Telephone Nigams of Delhi and Bombay except calling upon the respondents 10 implement every term of the Scheme at an early date
332E F As per existing recruitment rules extra departmental agents are 330 given preference in the matter of absorption as Group D  postmen
Directions have already been issued for their absorption against the vacancies
333H The claim to bonus may be left to arbitration or for being dealt with by a Consultative Council
334F After rendering three years of continuous service with temporary status the casual labourers shall be treated at par with temporary Grade D  employees of the Department of Posts and would thereby be entitled to such benefits as are admissible to Group D  employees on regular basis
335B