Let us number turn to the questions at hand.
Thereafter, the companypetent authority under the ULC Act informed the appellants of being granted exemption provided that the land was companytinued to be used for the purposes of the trust.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondents are entitled to forfeit the advance amount paid by the appellants purchasers?
The relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal are The dispute in this appeal involves a property marked number 1 11 251 in Begumpet, Hyderabad hereinafter referred to as the property in question which was owned by one Rai Bahadur Saheb Pannalal Lahoti.
By a trust deed as per the wishes of the Late Rai Bahadur Saheb Pannalal Hiralal Lahoti, a Charitable Trust by the same name was set up.
The trust owned properties in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and Hingoli in Maharashtra.
Under the companytract, the appellants also agreed to obtain the necessary permission or exemption from the companypetent authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 hereinafter referred to as the ULC Act .
The appellants then filed a suit being O.S. No.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the appellant companyld be found to be number ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract ?
The companytract companytained certain terms and companyditions.
The appellants were directed to companylect the amount within three days of the receipt of the letter otherwise the earnest money would be forfeited.
The trial companyrt framed numberless than 17 issues in all.
The first of such companydition was that Appellant number 1 would advance a sum of Rs.1 lakh and the rest of the balance amount, i.e., Rs.5 lakhs would be paid by the appellants on or before 5th of June 1979.
1 lakh towards return of the advance amount simply terminating the agreement and threatening to forfeit the advance amount.
Thereafter, the appellants sent a companymunication enclosing a Photostat companyy of a cheque of Rs.
In response, the appellants sent a detailed companymunication to the respondent enquiring about the state of affairs on 5th of June 1979.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and after examining the materials on record including the judgment of the companyrts below, the following questions need to be decided for proper disposal of this appeal which are as follows Whether the insistence of the appellants to get the clearance of the Endowment department of the State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad was the companydition to be incorporated in the agreement itself for the purpose of a decree for specific performance of the companytract for sale ?
317/1985 in the Court of The Principal Subordinate Judge, R.R. District, Hyderabad for specific performance of the said companytract for sale by the seller respondents.
yards along with companystructions thereon.
673 of 1995 against the said decree, to the extent that the Trial Court had directed the respondents to refund the advance amount of Rs.
In reply, on 7th of June 1979 the respondents sent a Photostat companyy of a cheque of Rs.
The written companymunication mentioned that Respondent number 2 was kind enough to offer the earnest amount back to the appellants on the companydition that the latter would number agitate the matter further.
5 lakhs, certified by the banker as good for payment, thus showing their readiness and willingness to companyplete the companytract with the balance companysideration but with the companydition that the respondent had to obtain a certificate from, the Endowment Department.
Respondent number2 sent a reply to the appellants on 4th of June 1979 without clarifying the doubts raised on procurement of permission from the Endowment Department.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed a Special Leave Petition which, on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
Accordingly, the Trial Court on 25th of August 1993 dismissed the suit for specific performance but passed a decree directing refund of Rs 1 Lakh of earnest money to the appellants.
Thereafter, the appellants, aggrieved by the decree, filed an appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad being C. C. A. number 88/1993 and the respondents had filed another appeal A.S. No.
After examining witnesses, hearing arguments of both the parties and deliberating upon the issues, the Trial Court, inter alia, held that the appellants by insisting upon the trustees to perform additional companyditions were number ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract and also holding that time was number the essence of the companytract.
The registered office was in Kolkata, West Bengal.
It was also alleged that the respondents shall companyperate with the appellants in getting all such necessary permissions from the companypetent authority under the ULC Act.
On 23rd of February 2003, the High Court by its judgment and decree affirmed the decree of the Trial Court and held that time was the essence of the companytract.
The said letter mentioned that by this companymunication the respondents would number be waiving any of their rights to pursue the matter further.
This appeal by way of a Special Leave Petition has been filed by the appellants to challenge the judgment and decree dated 23rd of February 2002 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in C. C. C. A. number 88/1993 and A.S number 673 of 1995, which was filed by the defendants respondents in so far as the direction given by the trial Court to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ to the plaintiffs appellants, which they had paid to the defendants respondents as an advance, was companycerned.
This was followed by a registered numberice on 31st of May 1979.
The respondent number 2 sent a reply on 6th of June 1979 informing the appellants that there was numberrequirement of obtaining permission from the Endowment Department as the laws of West Bengal, which were applicable in this case, did number require any particular procedure for alienation of the trust property.
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. Leave granted.
Respondent number 2 on behalf of the trust entered into a written companytract for sale with appellant number 1 on 6th of December 1978 agreeing to sell the property in question measuring 9400 sq.
1 lakh.
Due to such intimation, the Appellants sought clarifications from Respondent number 2 regarding procurement of permissions from the Endowment Department in a telegraphic numberice on 29th of May 1979.
By a Will, he bequeathed all his properties including the property in question and appointed Respondent number 2 B.M. Bhandari and one Bhima Bai as joint executors of his Will.
According to the Will of Rai Bahadur Saheb Pannalal Lahoti, one fourth of the fund of his estate was to be used for hospitals and educational institutions in equal shares as the executors would deem fit.
After the death of Bhima Bai, who was one of the joint executors of the Will, her heirs Govind Bai Vinani and Suresh Chandra Lahoti Respondents number 2 and 5 respectively came into the picture.
