Breaking SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS PUBLIC DOMAIN PROTECTION FOR DIGITAL LAWS
New Delhi · Sunday, 20 September 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law - free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2016-08-01 allowed

Madina Begum & Anr vs Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey & Ors

Bench: 2 — Madan B. Lokur

In Brief

Madina Begum purchased agricultural land from Gulab Bai under an agreement to sell dated 3 September 2001, which stipulated the balance payment and property transfer within six months. After Gulab Bai's death in January 2002, her executors refused to execute the sale deed. Madina sued for specific performance in 2008. The trial court found the suit within the limitation period of three years. The High Court reversed, holding it barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court held that Article 54's 'date fixed for performance' requires a specific calendar date, not a general period like 'six months'. Since none was specified, limitation began only when performance was refused. The Court also held that appellate courts must decide all issues on merits, not just preliminary points. The appeal was allowed and the matter remanded.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Limitation Law Specific Performance Contract Law Appellate Procedure Code of Civil Procedure

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login