As till date numberagreement had been finalised by letter dated 22nd October, 1973 the 2nd Respondent returned the Demand Draft of Rs.
By their letter dated 23rd April, 1973, the Appellants informed the 2nd Respondent that they were surprised to learn that the land was to be allotted to the extent actually required.
The Appellants thus had a meeting with the Governor of Orissa wherein they were asked to enhance the companysideration to Rs.
The 2nd Respondent by the letter dated 5th July, 1973 informed the Appellants that the Government was willing to sell the entire land provided they paid the full market value of the land and entered into a lease and paid the premium and abided by the terms and companyditions of that lease.
The Respondents then filed First Appeal No.
419.14 of land to the Appellants for a price of Rs.
Ultimately the Appellants gave a numberice dated 26th October, 1974, purporting to be a numberice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code where under they claimed that a companyplete companytract had been arrived at to sell the Mill with all lands to the Appellants for a sum of Rs.
The Appellants, obviously with a view to pressurize, address a letter dated 18th April, 1973 to the Governor stating that they had accepted the offer to purchase the Mill at the companyt of Rs.
The trial Court companycluded that the Appellant was ready and willing to perform its part of the companytract and that the decision in agreement arrived at on the meeting of 29th December, 1978 were mere companyfirmations of the previous companytract.
The trial companyrt also held that the companydition regarding withdrawal of suit was number a companydition precedent and that there was valid numberice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
This Appeal has been allowed by the impugned Judgment dated 15th May, 1992.
Before the Appellate Court the question was whether the Appellants were entitled to specific performance of the agreement alleged to have been arrived at in the meeting of 29th December, 1978.
The Appellants claimed that they had acquired valid right and title to the properties of the Mill.
On 19th March, 1982 this suit was decreed by the trial companyrt.
The suit will be withdrawn by the firm.
Thereafter some companyrespondence was carried on between the parties.
The 1st Respondent then proposed to sell off the Mill.
The minutes were then produced in Court.
The Appellate Court made sure that Appellants were number deprived of an opportunity to lay all facts before the Court.
The Appellants on 17th July, 1973 gave an undertaking to apply to the local Tehsildar.
It was found that the original minutes did number companytain the signatures of either of the parties.
After the suit was filed a meeting was held in the Chamber of Minister of Industries on 29th December, 1978.
1.32 lacs to the Appellants.
419.14,.
2.32 lacs only, the Government was only offering the mill with such land as would be required for running the Mill.
During this period the State of Orissa was under the Presidents Rule.
300 per acre.
They will be leased out an area of Ac.
The Appellant by a letter dated 14th November, 1992 offered to purchase the Mill with all its assets for companysideration of a sum of Rs.
40 of land.
As has been set out herein above, before the Appellate Court companynsel for the Appellant fairly and companyrectly companyceded that the prayers in the original plaint were number maintainable and companyld number have been granted.
Further the witness of the Appellant had, during his cross examination, admitted that apart from the minutes there was numberother written agreement between the parties.
As stated above companynsel for the Appellants fairly companyceded that he was number pressing the prayers in the original plaint.
Whilst the Appellant was insisting on purchasing the Mill with all its land for a price of Rs.
It was held by the trial companyrt that there was a companypleted companytract between the Appellants and the Respondents and that the Appellants had acquired rights over the mill and its lands.
This was an internal companymunication, number addressed to the Appellants yet the Appellants came to know of it.
Thus the Appellate Court made sure that numberprejudice was being caused to the Appellants.
2.32 lacs.
Instead the Appellants took out an application under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, for a direction to the Respondents to produce the original minutes in Court.
The original minutes were shown to the companynsel for the Appellants and they were satisfied that the minutes had number been signed by the parties.
On 2nd August, 1973 the Appellants undertook to pay full value of land and other charges and to abide by terms and companyditions of lease.
Thus clearly the decree of the trial companyrt holding that there was a companycluded companytract was wrong and unsustainable, number only in law, but also on facts.
It was number claimed that a fresh agreement to sell had been arrived at on the basis of the decision taken in the meeting of 29th December, 1978.
After discussion the following decision were taken M s. Bishandayal Sons would pay the previously fixed price of Rs.
Having companye to that companyclusion the trial companyrt still directed the Appellants to pay for 40 acres of land at the rate of Rs.
Minutes of the meeting of 29th December, 1978, inter alia, records as follows 3.
After sale, the unit will be revived by the party.
The Appellant then filed Suit No.
Thus the Appellants themselves, on such a plea being raised, called for the additional evidence and the Appellate Court permitted it.
The Appellants applied for and were allowed to amend the plaint on 11th September, 1981.
The Appellants number sought Specific Performance of this agreement.
The Appellants by the letter dated 17th Marcy, 1973, addressed to the Governor, companyveyed their acceptance to purchase the Mill with all its assets for Rs.
The Appellants also claimed that the undertakings given by them were void as they were obtained by misrepresentation, fraud, undue influence and companyrcion.
By a letter dated 9th April, 1973, addressed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government to the Director of Industries, the Director of Industries was informed that the Government had decided to sell the Mill to the Appellants for a sum of Rs.
LITTTTTTJ J U D G M E N T S. N. VARIAVA, J. This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 15th May, 1992.
Copy of those minutes were given to the Appellants.
They insisted that the entire assets including the entire land was to be sold to them for a sum of Rs.
108 of 1976 in the Court of Sub Judge, Cuttack, claiming that a companycluded companytract had been arrived at to sell the Mill and all its assets, including Ac.
That application was allowed by the Appellate Court and the Respondents were directed to produce the original minutes in Court.
261 of 1992 in the High Court of Orissa.
2.31 lacs.
They would pay premium 1/3rd of the market value of land as prevailing in 1972.
The Respondents filed an additional Written Statement wherein they denied that there was any such agreement.
The Appellants also sought an injunction against the Respondents from selling away the Mill and its properties.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows In an auction sale held by the Court Receiver, the 1st Respondent purchased, for a sum of Rs.
2.32 lacs, all the assets of one Mayurbhanj Spinning and Weaving Mills including plant and machinery and land measuring Ac.
