15,000/ within two years.
The suit was accordingly dismissed.
The second companytention is that companytract itself became incapable of specific performance in view of the fact that during the pendency of second appeal the State had initiated proceedings for companypulsory acquisition of the suit proper ties and the subject matter of the suit itself ceased to be available.
1974 and soon thereafter the first numberice was issued to the defendant asking him to indicate a date for executing the saledeed and also expressing his readiness and willingness.However, in Respondents second appeal, the High Court reversed the findings of the two companyrts below and allowing the appeal held that Respondent Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the companytract that the Appellant was the party in breach and that, therefore, Respondent was entitled to a decree.
The Appellant companytested the suit principally on the ground that Respondent was never ready and willing to perform the companytract and that Respondent himself was in breach.
4916 of 1991 From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.1991 of the Alla habad High Court in Second Appeal No.
Respondents first appeal before the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar was also unsuccessful.
He seeks special leave to appeal to this Court from the judgment and order dated 5.4.1991 of the High Court of Allahabad in Second Appeal No.3395 of 1978 decreeing, in reversal of the decrees of dismissal entered by the two companyrts below, specific performance of an agreement for sale of land On 3.7.1973 Respondent Natthu Singh sold Plot No.195 measuring 5 bighas and 18 biswas and Plot No.196 measuring 9 bighas and 8 biswas of Gulistapur Village, Pargana Dadri to the appellant for a companysideration of Rs.
15,000.
Sri Manoj Swarup appearing in support of the appeal urged two companytentions the first is that the High Court was in error in embarking upon a re appraisal of the evidence in a second appeal to distrub companycurrent findings of fact that Respondent was not willing and ready to perform the company tract.
On the very day, i.e., 3.7.1973, another agreement was entered into between the parties whereunder Appellant agreed to reconvey the said properties to the Respondent against payment of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This decree is assailed in this ap peal.
On 2.6.1975, well within the period of two years stipulated for the performance of the agreement to re sell, Respondent instituted the suit for specific performance alleging that despite offer of performance and tendering the price, Appel lant, with the dishonest intention of appropriating the properties to himself refused reconveyance.
3395 of 1978.
Appellant was Defendant in a suit for specific performance.
The trial companyrt framed the necessary and relevant issues stemming from the pleadings and on its own apprecia tion of the evidence on record came to find against the Respondent that he was ready and willing to perform the companytract and that the agreement, being one of reconveyance, time was of its essence.
Manoj Swarup and Ms. Lalita Kohli for the Appellants.
15,000/ on 30.1.
We have heard Sri Manoj Swamp, learned companynsel for the Appellant and Shri Goodwill Indeevar for the Respondent.
S. Nagar for Goodwill Indeevar for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALIAH, J. Special leave is granted and the appeal taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this judgment.
