Latest
Wednesday, October 28, 2026
EN हिं Sign In Contribute
Rajasthan High Court
High Courts

Sellers Must Notify Buyer Before Cancelling Land Sale Agreement by Newspaper Notice: Rajasthan High Court Decrees Specific Performance

Published: · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court decreed specific performance of a 2012 agreement to sell agricultural land, reversing a trial court that had allowed only a refund (paras 1, 29). The buyer had paid Rs 1.31 crore; the sellers cancelled the agreement by a newspaper notice for non-payment of the balance within three months. Time was not of the essence, the sellers gave no prior notice, their cancellation did not appear bona fide, and the buyer was ready and willing (paras 26-28).

Sellers Must Notify Buyer Before Cancelling Land Sale Agreement by Newspaper Notice: Rajasthan High Court Decrees Specific Performance

Judgment Intelligence

Petition Allowed
Surendra Singh Charan v. Nanchi Lal alias Nanchu & Ors.
2026:RJ-JP:43125
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 53/2022
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
27 October 2026
Bench
Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali
Relevant Acts & Sections
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 96; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 54; Indian Contract Act, 1872 — Section 55
Final Outcome

The appeal was allowed and the decree of 23 October 2021 set aside. Respondents other than 2, 5 and 6 must accept the balance and register their shares, or the appellant may obtain registration through the trial court; they may take the Rs 1.31 crore deposited, with interest (para 29).

Source Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — judgment dated 27.10.2026

View PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

  1. There is no presumption that time is of the essence in a sale of land; it turns on the terms, the property, the circumstances and the intention (paras 16-19, 28).
  2. The sellers had to give the buyer notice before cancelling through a newspaper; cancelling directly and forfeiting the money did not appear bona fide (paras 26-27).
  3. Paying Rs 1 crore on time, the refused notices and a public rebuttal showed readiness and willingness (paras 25, 27-28).
  4. The buyer cannot claim the shares of co-owners who did not sign the agreement (para 12).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Under an agreement of 14 August 2012 the appellant agreed to buy 7.71 bigha of land from four of the respondents at Rs 43 lakh a bigha, paying Rs 31 lakh in advance and Rs 1 crore more under a supplementary agreement of 13 September 2012; the balance was due within three months (paras 2, 23-25). On 6 December 2012 the sellers published a newspaper notice cancelling the agreement for non-payment and forfeited the Rs 1.31 crore; the buyer published a rebuttal on 8 December 2012 (paras 2, 9, 27). The trial court dismissed his suit for specific performance on 23 October 2021, holding him entitled only to the money received by respondents 1, 3 and 4 (paras 1, 6).

Court's Findings

In a sale of immovable property there is no presumption that time is of the essence; it turns on the terms, the nature of the property, the circumstances and the parties' intention (paras 16-19). Drawing on Raziya Begum and Kaliaperumal, the Court said a seller who intended a registered sale cannot refuse it for unpaid price but may only recover the balance (paras 20-22). Paying Rs 1 crore on time under clause 2 showed the buyer's intention (para 25). A revenue court's status quo order of 2009 over the land, the fifth respondent's admission that the sellers put off registration over demarcation, and a police charge-sheet on the buyer's complaint pointed the same way (para 25). His notice of 8 November 2012 was not proved, but the sellers had to give notice before cancelling through a newspaper; cancelling without it did not appear bona fide (paras 26-27). His refused notices of 7 December 2012 and public rebuttal showed readiness and willingness; time was not of the essence, and the trial court erred on issues 1-4 (paras 27-28).

Legal Principle

A deadline for paying the balance under an agreement to sell land does not by itself make time of the essence. Sellers who have received part of the price must notify the buyer before cancelling; a newspaper cancellation without notice does not appear bona fide, and a buyer shown ready and willing gets specific performance (paras 16-19, 26-28).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For sellers holding part of the price under an agreement to sell land, this judgment is a caution: a three-month deadline did not make time of the essence (paras 16-19, 28), and cancelling by newspaper notice without first notifying the buyer did not appear bona fide (paras 26-27). A seller relying on a deadline should serve written notice and keep proof. Buyers need proof too: this buyer's notice of 08.11.2012 was not proved without a postal receipt, while his refused notices of 07.12.2012 counted (paras 26-28). On unpaid price, the Court drew on the Supreme Court rulings (paras 20-22) also applied in Goma Devi v. Laxmi Narain Sharma, where unpaid price did not void a registered sale deed.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. Chand Rani (Smt) (Dead) by LRs v. Kamal Rani (Smt) (Dead) by LRs (1993) 1 SCC 519
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 15, 16, 19

    The Court extracted paras 18-25: in a sale of immovable property there is no presumption that time is of the essence, though it may be inferred from the express terms, the nature of the property and the surrounding circumstances (para 15), and a passage holding that the parties there had made time of the essence (para 16). From these it held that whether time is of the essence depends on the terms, the property, the circumstances and the parties' intention (paras 16, 19).

  2. Indira Kaur (Smt) v. Sheo Lal Kapoor (1988) 2 SCC 488
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 17

    Quoted (para 6 of that judgment) for the settled law that in transactions of sale of immovable property time is not the essence of the contract (para 17).

  3. Coromandel Indage Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Garuda Chit & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2011) 8 SCC 601
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 18, 19

    Quoted for the proposition that whether time is of the essence can be gathered only from the intention of the parties (para 18); applied in holding that the Court must weigh the terms, readiness, intention and bona fides (para 19).

View all precedents (10)
  1. Raziya Begum & Ors. v. Nafisa Begum Abdul Hamid & Ors. Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No. 7225/2011, dated 07.08.2026
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 20, 22

    Extract (paras 10, 11 and 14 of that judgment) holding that under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act payment of the whole price is not essential to complete a sale, and a registered sale deed executed knowing that only part of the price was paid is not void; the remedy is to recover the balance (para 20). The Court drew from it that a seller who intended a registered sale cannot refuse it for unpaid price but may only recover the balance (para 22).

  2. Kaliaperumal v. Rajagopal & Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 193
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 21, 22

    Extract (paras 17-18 of that judgment): payment of the entire price is not a condition precedent to passing of title under Section 54; on non-payment the vendor may only sue for the balance, though the true test is the parties' intention (para 21). Relied on with Raziya Begum for the principle stated in para 22.

  3. Kannan (Died) & Ors. v. Dhanalakshmi Madras High Court, Second Appeal No. 15/2009, order dated 17.10.2014
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 26, 27

    Para 14 of that judgment quoted: a defendant must intimate the alleged cancellation of an agreement to sell to the plaintiff by notice, and failure to do so affects his defence (para 26). Applying it, the Court held that the respondents, who cancelled through a newspaper notice without first giving notice, did not act bona fide (para 27).

  4. Kammana Sambamurthy (Deceased) by LRs v. Kalipatnapu Atchutamma (Deceased) by LRs & Ors. 2010 AIR SCW 6219
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10

    Cited by the respondents in support of their submissions (para 10). The Court's reasoning does not discuss it (paras 11-28).

  5. Hari Steel and General Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. Daljit Singh & Ors. 2019(2) WLC (SC) Civil 345
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10

    Cited by the respondents in support of their submissions (para 10). The Court's reasoning does not discuss it (paras 11-28).

  6. Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi & Ors. 2011 AIR SCW 4092
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10

    Cited by the respondents in support of their submissions (para 10). The Court's reasoning does not discuss it (paras 11-28).

  7. Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs v. Hartar Singh Sangha 2010 DNJ (SC) 1157
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10

    Cited by the respondents in support of their submissions (para 10). The Court's reasoning does not discuss it (paras 11-28).

Statutory Provisions: CPC Section 96 (CPC)
Topics: Specific Performance Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit Time as Essence of Contract Readiness and Willingness (Specific Performance)
NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: October 27, 2026 Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali
PDF
Join our WhatsApp Group
✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt