the gist of the companytention is that the appel lant companyld number put an end to the companytract if there was failure on part of the respondent to perform the agreement.
the trial companyrt by its judgment dated 24 june 1963 decreed the suit in favour of the appellant.
the other issues were the defendant respondent proved that the properties were agreed to be purchased for rs.2000/ .
17000/ .
the high companyrt reversed the judgment of the trial companyrt.
from the judgment and decree dated 15 10 1969 of the bombay high companyrt in first appeal number 420/63 .
12000/ to the appellant.
12000/ .
5000/ as the balance amount of purchase price and interest thereon amounting to rs.
10500/ consisting of the principal sum of rs.
12000/ paid by him and also the sum of rs.
at the trial one of the issues was whether the appellant proved that the respondent entered into a sauda on 24 january 1952 with the appellants father to purchase for rs.7000/ the properties mentioned in schedule a to the plaint.
the pre eminent question in this appeal is whether the respondent has been ready and willing to perform the agree ment entered into with the appellant.
the submission is fallacious.
5500/ .
the case of the appellant is that there was an oral agreement for sale of property companysisting of agricultural land admeasuring 23 acres approximately for a sum of rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ray c.j.
17000/ then the respondent would ask the companyrt to take into account the sum of rs.
the respondent refused to perform the agreement.
1500/ paid by him from time to time thereafter.
17000/ .
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 945 of 1972.
companynsel for the respondent companytended that the suit of the appellant was number maintainable.
5000/ .
this appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 15 october 1969 of the bombay high companyrt in first appeal number 420 of 1963.
in the suit the reliefs claimed were possession of the property and in the alternative a decree for rs.
the charge is that the appellant changed the figure to rs.
sharad manumberar and suresh sethi for the respondents.
the respondent was also in possession of the property.
17000/ .
the appellant all along asserted that the agree ment was that the property was agreed to be sold only for a sum of rs.
do so.
the respondent failed to.
parekh and miss manu jetlay for the appellant.
it was said that the appel lant was number companypetent to maintain the suit by reason of provisions companytained in sections 39 and 55 of the indian contract act.
the respondent characterised the suit as mean effort to recover illegally the additional price of the ostensible rs.
the appellant called upon the respondent to pay the full amount of purchase price.
the plaintiff on respondents refusal to perform the agree ment flied the suit.
the respond ent from time to time paid rs.
the principal defence was that the agreement for sate was only for rs.
and that the respondent paid the amount in full.
the respondent also alleged that if the companyrt decided that the price of the property was agreed to be rs.
in short the defendant alleged fraud against the appellant.
the trial companyrt held in favour of the appellant and rejected the defence of the respondent.
a companyollary to the issue raised in the written statement was whether defendant proved the circumstances in which it was made to appear that the sauda was for rs.
m. tarkunde p.h.
the case of the appellant has always been that the respondent refused to perform the agreement.
