Case: Ramzan Vs. Smt. Hussaini

The property was under a mortgage and according to the plaintiffs case, the defendant had agreed to execute a deed of sale on the redemption of the mortgage 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 suit3. The defendant-appellant, besides pleading limitation, denied the agreement as also the plaintiffs allegation that she had redeemed the mortgage4. 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 judgment5. 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 counting 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 Limitation Act. 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 necessary 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 read thus;Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which periodbegins to run"54. For specific three years The date fixed for theperformance Performance, or, ifno such date is fixedwhen the plaintiff hasnotice that performanceAs the notice preceding the suit was admittedly served within three years, the defendants plea of limitation was rejected

Reasoning:
in our view the answer is in the affirmative. It is true that a particular date from the calendar 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, filed 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 contingent contract within the meaning of Section 31 ofthe Indian Contract Act, 1872 and became enforceable as soon as the event of redemption (by the plaintiff herself) happened. We agree with the view of the Madras High Court in R. Muniswami Goundar v. B. M. Shamanna Gouda (AIR 1950 Mad 820 ) expressed in slightly different circumstances. The doctrine of id certum 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 v. Brighton Club and Norfolk Hotel Company ((1875) 10 QB 371), 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 hesitation 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 plaintiffs 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 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 requirements of the section were satisfied. The same is the position 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 calculation 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