CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4315 of 1991 PETITIONER:
MOTILAL JAIN Vs. RESPONDENT:
SMT.RAMDASI DEVI & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/07/2000 BENCH:
S.V.Patil, S.S.M.Quadri JUDGMENT: L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T. T..J J U D G M E N T SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court (Assam) in First Appeal No.43 of 1981 passed on October 22, 1990. The plaintiff in the suit, out of which this appeal arises, is the appellant and the respondents are legal representatives of the defendant - Ambika Prasad Ram. Hereinafter the parties will be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant to purchase the suit property for a consideration of Rs.25,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.17,000/- was paid at the time of the execution of the contract on February 20, 1977 (Ext.2); the balance of the consideration, Rs.8000/-, was stipulated to be paid within five months from the date of Ext.2, at the time of execution of registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Alleging that the defendant was evading to receive the balance amount of Rs.8000/- and execute the sale deed, the plaintiff sent notices through his advocate on March 15, 1978 (Ext.5), and again on April 4, 1978 (Ext.3) and finally on November 26, 1978 (Ext.4). The plaintiff then filed the suit, T.S.No.36 of 1979, against the defendant in the court of the Assistant District Judge of Goalpara at Dhubri, praying for a decree of specific performance of contract for sale of the suit property (Ext.1) and claimed in the alternative damages in the sum of Rs.38,000/- on August 10, 1979. The defendant denied the execution of Ext.2, receipt of Rs.17,000/- as part consideration thereunder, his signature on it and submitted that, therefore, the question of avoiding to execute the sale deed would not arise. He pleaded that the appellant was entitled to neither the specific performance of contract nor the damages, the alternative claim. On considering the evidence produced by the parties, the trial court found that the defendant executed Ext.2 and decreed the suit for specific performance of Ext.2 on July 25, 1981. The defendant filed First Appeal No.43 of 1981 against the judgment of the trial court in the Gauhati High Court (Assam). During the pendency of the appeal the said defendant died and the respondents were brought on record as his legal representatives. The High Court confirmed the finding of the trial court that the defendant executed Ext.2 but noted: (i) that the suit was filed after two years of the accrual of the cause of action on July 21, 1977 and after about one year of last notice issued on November 26, 1978 (Ext.4); (ii) from the averment in the plaint the readiness and willingness could not be inferred; and (iii) even assuming that the averment made out the readiness and willingness, there was no evidence to prove the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, by the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment of the trial court with regard to relief of specific performance of the contract (Ext.2) but granted a decree for compensation in a sum of Rs.22,094/-(Rs.17,000/-
contended that of paras to Forms of 47 Civil Procedure of and in Ouseph of Varghese 539] and of Abdul 1990 SC of 682).
framed an of issue appellant but of it the trial of court further contended of that wife is of the existence Ext.2 of which justify granting of of performance and of the Here, the of short the High of Court which the of High suit. of It of of delay performance of of contract Delay running of beyond Limitation Act; of (ii) is within of the the third of parties of suit; of delay may of give be inequitable of to of of the factually also, of the assumption with of regard executed on of February to be of executed was issued of on was filed of only year as of noted this case of the relief to of the favour from of the show that of the part of of the record to of prove placing reliance of on In that of case, sale of of the oral agreement of and to which of the subsequent pleading of and Court pointed of out should conform of to the Code of of Abdul Khaders of case struck by of this case A of agreed was not of having Government nor of was however, received of earnest for sale of which would be of paid the registered of sale obligation to of obtain Government before of the not take of any Government. of A the contract of for was that of A of the of contract. willingness could of not and that of had circumstances relevant of to party concerned. of material to of show willing to of perform have the of necessary would be of executed entitled to of a That decision of was this Court of in held that of in keep in of mind science but of an law of of ones India most of of they inevitably of differ gather true of spirit whole and of to obligations, one of has plea. of It requires a of plea any form. of No to take of such Specific Relief of Act, phraseology but of only If the of averments indicate the of readiness fulfil his of part is subject- of matter differently worded of will and willingness of of performance of of contract perusal of of paras the readiness of and obligation which of he balance of of consideration. the defendant of to Rs.8000/- and of execute Patna (Bihar) of at to his of place support of of his Special Leave Petition (crl.) of The consideration at of the no reason of why consideration of of Rs.8,000/- his favour. of We that the of conduct relief of of specific Mr.Choudhary of that compensation in of lieu disentitled to of claim contract, is of to claim was of in Specific Relief of Act, claims damages of in contract as of alternative not entitled of to contract itself. of Court is of sustainable judgment and of decree judgment of of the accordingly we of do the trial of court.
deposited the of balance judgment of and representatives of of the ordered to of execute within three of months plaintiff is of entitled defendant/respondents. to of receive to of receive