Legal Analysis: Habban Shah vs. Sheruddin

Citation: 2026 INSC 451
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
Date of Decision: May 6, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal under Article 136 against High Court order dismissing revision and allowing execution of specific performance decree.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The plaintiff obtained a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The decree directed the defendant to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration within three months (by 31.01.2013). The plaintiff did not deposit the balance amount within the stipulated time, nor sought extension. He filed execution only in 2015, after the first appeal (filed by defendant) was dismissed. The Executing Court and High Court allowed the execution, holding that the delay was condoned by subsequent permission to deposit. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that non‑deposit of balance consideration within the time fixed by the decree automatically renders the decree inexecutable and the suit stands dismissed. The Court relied on P.R. Yelumalai v. N.M. Ravi and distinguished Dr. Amit Arya. The contract was rescinded under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, and the defendant was directed to refund the earnest money of ₹80,000 with 8% interest p.a. from 2005.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title Habban Shah vs. Sheruddin Civil Appeal No. Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14479 of 2025 Bench Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti Date of Decision May 6, 2026 Citation 2026 INSC 451 Appeal From Order dated 24.03.2025 of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 7232/2015

2. Legal Framework

Laws/Provisions:

• Specific Relief Act, 1963: Sections 16(c) (readiness and willingness), 20 (discretionary relief), 28 (rescission of contract after decree)

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XX Rule 12A (decree to specify time for payment), Section 148/151 (extension of time)

• Limitation Act, 1963: Article 136 (12 years for execution of decree)

• Indian Contract Act, 1872: Section 55 (time as essence)

Precedents Cited:

• Balbir Singh v. Baldev Singh (Dead) (2025) – Court retains jurisdiction under Section 28 to extend time or rescind contract; language of Section 28(1) gives discretionary power.

• P.R. Yelumalai v. N.M. Ravi (2023) – Conditional decree is self‑operative; non‑co

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.