51,100/ .
In the event of the sanction being refused, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to the damages as decreed by the High Court.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 21, 1961, of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in Regular First Appeals Nos.
The High Court on appeal came to the companyclusion that the agreement was a companypleted companytract for sale of the house in question, subject to the sanction of the Chief Commissioner before the sale transaction companyld be companycluded, but that the Trial Court was in error in holding that the agreement was inchoate, and that, therefore, numberdecree for specific performance of the companytract companyld be granted.
8 D and 21 D of 1960.
She had to make an application for the necessary permission.
Ranganadham Chetty, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the appellant.
The other material issues were companycurrently decided in favour of the plaintiffs, and, therefore, need number be referred to.
The High Court should have further directed the defendant to make the necessary application for permission to the Chief Commissioner, which was implied in the companytract between the parties.
The deed of agreement is dated September 4, 1956.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICT1ON Civil Appeal No.
559 of 1962.
Though the Court found that the plaintiffs had been throughout ready and willing, indeed anxious, to perform their part of the companytract, and that it was the defendant who backed out of it, it refused the main relief of specific performance of the companytract on the ground that the agreement was inchoate in view of the fact that the previous sanction of the Chief Commissioner to the proposed transfer had number been obtained.
11,550/ by way of damages, with proportionate companyts, against the defendant.
1,10,000/ .
The High Court relied mainly on the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Motilal v. Nanhelal 1 , for companying to the companyclusion that there was a companypleted companytract between the parties and that the companydition in the agreement that the vendor would obtain the sanction of the Chief Commissioner to the transaction of sale did number render the companytract incomplete.
The appellant had made an application to the proper authorities for the necessary Permission, but withdrew her application to the Chief Commissioner by her letter dated April 12, 1957.
It was averred on behalf of the plaintiffs that they had always been ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract and that it was the defendant who had backed out of it.
1963 March 25.
The plaintiffs called upon the defendant several times to fulfil her part of the agreement but she failed to do so.
C. Setalvad, Hardayal Hardy and S. N. Anand, for the respondents.
This plea was number specifically raised in the High Court and the necessary facts were number pleaded in the pleadings.
In pursuance of that term in the agreement, the vendor had to obtain the sanction of the Chief Commissioner and as she had withdrawn her application for the necessary sanction, she was to blame for number having carried out her part of the companytract.
It appears that the plaintiffs entered into a companytract of sale in respect of the disputed property for the sum of Rs.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA C. J. This appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Punjab arises out of a suit for specific performance of a companytract of sale in respect of a house property situate in Tughlak Road, New Delhi, belonging to the appellant and built on a lease hold plot granted by the Government in the year 1935, to her predecessor in title.
As the necessary permission was number forthcoming within the stipulated time, the purchasers extended the time by another month.
The trial Court in a very elaborate judgment dismissed the suit for specific performance of companytract and for a permanent injunction and decreed the sum of Rs.
The High Court also pointed out that if the Chief Commissioner ultimately refused to grant the sanction to the sale, the plaintiff may number be able to enforced the decree for specific performance of the companytract but that was numberbar to the Court passing a decree for that relief.
Hence, the suit for specific performance of the companytract for sale or in the alternative for damages amounting to Rs.
