RAMZAN vs SMT. HUSSAINI

The Supreme Court held that the agreement in question constituted a contingent contract under Section 31 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, becoming enforceable upon the redemption of the mortgage. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision that the suit for specific performance was not barred by limitation, as the cause of action arose from the redemption event, which did not have a fixed date for performance. The Court upheld the trial court's ruling that the notice for specific performance was served within the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963.