In a significant ruling on property transactions and limitation law, the Supreme Court on January 7, 2026, overturned concurrent findings of the trial court and the Kerala High Court, restoring a suit for specific performance that had been dismissed for years. The dispute revolved around a stalled land sale linked to the functioning of a higher secondary school in Kerala, where a fractional ownership became the centre of prolonged litigation.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an agreement executed in May 2007 for the sale of nearly 3.35 acres of land, including a school campus, for ₹2.7 crore. The property originally belonged to Seethi Thangal and later devolved upon his nine children, including Sakeena Beevi.
Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji, the purchaser, paid an advance and obtained multiple extensions of the agreement. Eight of the nine heirs eventually executed a sale deed in his favour in May 2013. The dispute persisted only with respect to Sakeena Beevi’s 1/11th share, which she declined to convey, prompting a suit for specific performance.
The trial court dismissed the suit in 2015, holding it time-barred. Although the Kerala High Court disagreed on some factual aspects, it still dismissed the appeal, citing limitation and lack of readiness and willingness on the buyer’s part.
What the Supreme Court Examined
Hearing the appeal, a Bench of the Supreme Court closely examined the sequence of powers of attorney, extensions of the agreement, and, crucially, an affidavit dated April 30, 2013, executed by Sakeena Beevi.
The affidavit explicitly ratified the acts of her brother, who had acted as power of attorney holder, and recorded her no-objection to transferring ownership and management of the school property. The bench noted that the affidavit was never disputed and that the respondent herself did not step into the witness box.
“The execution of the affidavit is not in dispute and carries clear admissions,” the bench observed, noting that such a document could not be brushed aside casually.
On limitation, the Court rejected the High Court’s view that the cause of action arose in 2008. It held that limitation must be computed from April 30, 2013 - the date of the affidavit - when the respondent last acknowledged and ratified the transaction.
“Once the affidavit is taken into account, limitation would necessarily run from the later date,” the Court said, concluding that the suit filed in 2013 was well within time.
The bench also found fault with the finding on readiness and willingness. It pointed out that the buyer had paid the consideration to other co-owners, obtained a partial sale deed, and even offered ₹75 lakh during mediation to resolve the dispute. These facts, the Court said, clearly demonstrated his intention to complete the transaction.
Read also:- Bombay High Court restrains former franchisee from using Jawed Habib trademark after franchise expiry
Court’s Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of both the trial court and the Kerala High Court. It held that the buyer was entitled to specific performance for Sakeena Beevi’s 1/11th share in the property.
The trial court has been directed to determine the balance sale consideration payable for that share, applying simple interest at 9 percent. The purchaser must deposit the amount within two months, after which a registered sale deed shall be executed in his favour.
With this, the long-running dispute came to a close, restoring the full land extent required for the continued operation of the school and conclusively settling the rights of the parties.
Case Title: Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji v. Sakeena Beevi
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 3894–3895 of 2022
Case Type: Civil Appeal (Specific Performance)
Decision Date: January 7, 2026
