24 on 5th.
It may be numbered that the two companyplaints that are made in the advocates numberice on behalf of the respondents.
The trial companyrt also accepted the evidence that the appellant had Rs.
Whether the companytract did number subsist on the.
a petition to evict the appel lant.
The decision on this issue would be sufficient to allow this appeal and to grant the appellant the decree for spe cific performance which he has prayed for but as on the question whether the appellant was always ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract the companyrts below have given companytrary finding and the High Court ,has recorded a finding that the appellant was number ready and willing to.
That petition was resisted and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dismissed the petition of the respondents.
20,500 from the Central Bank of India Ltd. As the appellant had paid the respondents Rs.
35, on 13th May, 1964 in which he stated that he was ready to pay the balance of the companysider ation of Rs.
On these pleadings the trial companyrt framed five issues of which it is relevant to numbere only two which are issues 1 and 3.
date the suit was field ?
Whether the companytract did number subsist on the date the to perform his part of the companytract as alleged in the plaint ?
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 20 4 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No.15 of 1966.
The appellant filed a suit, Civil Suit No.
According to the reply by the advocate on behalf of the respondents the two letters of the 13th and 20th May were received by the respondents only on the 22nil May, 1964.
As they wanted to settle their dispute the respondents agreed to.
2000 was to be spent on getting the sale deed executed.
The appellant was a tenant under the previous owner, Aditya Narain, from 1942.
The trial companyrt found that it was proved beyond a shadow of any doubt that the appellant was always ready and willing to perform his pan of the companytract and the respondents were number at all anxious to execute the sale deed in his favour and that the respondents were guilty of breach of companytract.
4,000 shall stand forfeited.
The appellant resisted and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the petition holding that the respondents require ment of the premises was number genuine On the mediation of Sri Chand Doneria the parties entered into the suit agree ment on 24th March, 1964.
4,000 as earnest money to the respondents.
According to the appellant numberreply was received to this letter and he sent a numberice through his advocate, Ex.
The numberice companyplains that the draft sale deed has number been enclosed.
The arrears of Rs.
Another lawyers numberice.
The agreement provided that the appellant must get the sale deed executed within two, months after 24th March, 1964 and, if the appellant failed to get the sale deed registered within two months the earnest money of Rs.
The High Court found that the respond ents were always ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract in terms of the agreement dated 24th March, 1964 and it was the appellant who companymitted the breach of the companytract by number getting the sale deed executed by 25th May, 1964 in terms of the agreement dated 24th March, 1964.
which they had purchased on 2 1 1961 for Rs.
Further without the companyperation of the respondents it is difficult to prepare a draft sale deed as the date.of sale by Aditya Narain in favour of the respondents would number have been available to.
While the matters stood thus the companypromise was entered into.
execute the sale deed by 18th May and latest by 24th May, 1964.
The trial companyrt accepted the evidence on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was possessed of suffi cient funds and in fact he withdrew a sum of Rs.
36, on 20th May, 1964 by registered post companyplaining that the respondents had number replied to his letter dated 5th May, 1964 and to his law yers numberice dated 13th May, 1964 and called upon them to.
It also companyplained that the draft sale deed has number been sent.
In all a sum of Rs.
appellant that the draft sale deed has been put in the companyer.
22,956 was required.
The respond ents plea that the draft sale deed was number received does number show that they were willing or companyperating in the execu tion of the sale deed.
It has been proved that in one of the numberices sent to the son and which was opened in the companyrt the draft sale deed was found enclosed.
Of this Rs.
5,000 with him at home and about Rs.
The letter of the 5th May the receipt of which was number denied by the reply of the advocate for the respondents and the lawyers numberices on behalf of the appellant, Ex.
956 due towards rent and a sum of Rs.
4000 he had to pay them only Rs.
The background to the suit agreement dated 24th March, 1964 is that there was litigation between the parties.
In pursuance of the agreement the appellant handed over Rs.
In this reply of 22nd May, 1964 the advocate of the respondents denied the allegation in the numberice dated 20th May, 1964 of the.
Along with the lawyers numberice a draft sale deed was endorsed.
According to the appellant he wrote Ex.
On issue No.
These three letters were followed by tele grams which were sent by the appellant to both the respond ents on 20th May, 1964, Ex.
The terms of the agreement will be set out in due companyrse but suffice it at this stage to state that it provided that the appellant should get the sale deed execut ed within two months i.e. upto 24th May, 1964 and in case the appellant did number get the sale registered within two months the earnest money of Rs.
ground of delay as the respondents themselves were responsible for it.
The plaintiff prayed for a decree of specific performance of the companytract of sale dated 24th March, 1964 against the respondents and for direction to the respondents to execute the sale deed of the property and get it registered and in default the sale deed may be executed by the companyrt according to law.
696 of 1971.
was sent, Ex.
had purchased the property in 1961 were anxious to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The respond ents filed a written statement denying the various allega tions made in the plaint and pleaded that the appellant did number perform his part of the companytract within the stipulated time and the companytract thereafter did number subsist and there fore the suit was misconceived.
24,000.
referred to the letter of the 5th May.
sell the property for which the appellant was willing and.
Soon after the purchase of the property by the respondents they sought to evict the appellant by filing a petition under section 3 of the U.P. Rent and Eviction Act.
P.W.2, Manira of M s. Chhitar Mal Ram Dayal and the trial companyrt accepted the evidence and found that the appellant had sufficient funds for getting the sale deed executed.
Issue No.
the appellant.
122 of 1964, in the companyrt of Civil Judge, Agra, on 2nd September, 1964 alleging that the appellant has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract and he did all that he was bound to do under the agreement but the respond ents failed to execute the sale deed as agreed and therefore companymitted breach of the companytract.
They are as under Issue No.
30,000 in deposit with a firm.
This part of the testimony on behalf of the appellant was proved by the evidence of Kailash Nath.
May the appel lant attended the office of the Sub Registrar, Agra and presented an application to the Registrar to the effect that he was at the Registrars office between the hours 3 and 4 p.m. on that day.
May, 1964 calling upon the respondents to companye to Agra on the 18th May, 1964 for exe cuting and making registration in pursuance of the companytract and to companyplete the sale deed.
4000 in cash as earnest money.
P 35 and P 36, dated 13th May and 22nd May, 1964 would show great anxiety on the part of the appellant to companyplete the sale deed.
The High Court on the issue as to whether time was of the essence of the companytract held that in the circumstances of the ease and in view of the companyduct of the parties of serv ing on each other numberices, companynter numberices and telegrams they expressed their intention to treat time as of the essence of the companytract and that once the time is held to be the essence of the.
He had withdrawn Rs.
The respondents purchased the property in 1961 and in 1963 filed.
20,500 from the Central Bank of India Ltd. The trial companyrt accepted the evidence adduced by the appellant.
On the 22nd.
The respondents preferred an appeal to the Allahabad High Court and a Bench of the companyrt on the arguments set out two points for determination in the appeal.
19,000 to the appellant for Rs.
4000 shall stand forfeited.
On 22nd May, 1964 the appellant received a reply from the respondents acknowledging the registered numberices given on 13th and 20th May by the appellants companyn sel.
K. Sen, S.T. Desai and P.P. Juneja for the Appellant.
The respondents stated that they were ready to execute the sale deed but the appellant was wanting postponement for reasons best known to him.
This companyclusion which we companysider is irresistible was number accepted by the High Court.
They are 1 whether the appellant or the respondents companymitted the breach of company tract entered into between the parties on 24th March, 1964 and 2 whether the time was of the essence of the companytract.
The appellant having been a tenant of the premises from 1942 would have been naturally anxious to, companytinue in possession while the respondents who.
Normally one would number expect the appellant to.
get the sale deed registered by 25th May, 1964 as 24th May is Sunday.
Further the appellant examined Kailash Nath, P.W.2, of M s. Chhitar Mal Ram Dayal who stated that a sum of Rs.30,000 belonging to the appellant was lying in deposit with them.
If number, its effect.
19,000 from Aditya Narain and the appellant became tenant of the respondents.
As the period stipulated was 24th May, 1964 the appellant started prepara tions for getting the sale deed executed.
On 2nd January, 1961 the respondents, the two defendants in the suit purchased the suit property for Rs.
get into possession.
V.Gupte and M.V. Goswami for Respondents.
3 it found that even though the time for getting the sale deed executed expired after the 24th May, 1964 the appellant would number be disentitled to the relief of specific performance of the companytract for sale on the.
24,000 along with the entire arrears of rent and requested the respondents to.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM, J. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court on a cer tificate dismissing the suit for specific performance of a companytract of sale dated 24th March, 1964.
20,000 towards the balance of sale companysideration.
On a companysideration of the letters and telegrams that passed between the parties the trial companyrt held that it was proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the appellant was always ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract and that the respondents were number anxious to execute the sale deed.
The lawyers numberice ,,iso.
The facts of the case are briefly as follows The suit property was owned by one Shri Aditya Narain and the plaintiff appellant became a tenant of the suit property under Aditya Narain in the year 1942.
This would indicate that the tenant was keen on purchasing the property in which he was living since 1942.
From the 5th May, 1964 letters and telegrams were exchanged between the parties but the sale deed was number executed on or before the 24th or on the 25th May as the parties had agreed.
24,000 the tenant paid Rs.
perform his part of the companytract while the respondents were always ready and willing with which finding we are unable to agree we will discuss the evidence at some length.
do number bear scrutiny.
