The respondent had been and was still ready and willing to specifically perform the agreement and to accept a deed of lease for the lands in question in lieu of the said debt of Rs.
The present appellants then applied to the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court and the High Court granted leave because it held that the basic question involved in the decision of the appeal was the legal effect of Ex.
2,316 by way of companypensation was also passed against him.
11,080.
118 of 1947, arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated the 12th August, 1947, of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Wardha, in Civil Suit No.
In the result defend ant 1 was the only companytesting defendant in the proceedings.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 30th November, 1953, of the former Nagpur High Court in First Appeal No.
Defendant 1, however, had been guilty of gross and unreasonable delay in performing his part of the company tract and that had caused the respondent the loss of the benefit of the lease and companysequent damage.
Adhikari, Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh and 1.
The respondent repeatedly called upon defendant 1 to perform the said companytract, but defendant I paid numberheed to her demands and so she had to file the present suit for specific performance.
Pending the appeal defendant I died and his widow and his minor son came on the record as his legal representatives and prosecuted the said appeal.
2,340 as companypensation or in the alternative damages amounting to Rs.
9 A of 1946.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellants.
He denied the receipt of the companysideration alleged by her and he pleaded that the document Ex.
The declaration claimed by respondent against defendant 2 was likewise granted.
8,700.
In the result the decree passed by the trial companyrt was companyfirmed and defendant 1s appeal was dismissed.
A decree for the payment of Rs.
To this suit Mst.
Defendant 1 did number repay the loan by the stipulated date and so he became liable to perform and give effect to the said companytract of lease on June 1, 1944.
The respondents case was that defendant I had executed an instrument Ex.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Durgabai, the daughter of defendant I had been impleaded as defendant 2 on the ground that she was setting up her own title in respect of the lands in suit and a declaration was claimed against her that she had numberright, title or interest in the said lands.
Several pleas were raised by defendant I against the respondents claim.
January 21.
N. Shroff, for the respondent.
According to the respondent the instrument had provided that, if defendant 1 did number repay to her the said debt on June 1, 1944, the said companytract of lease would be operative on and from that date.
Accordingly a decree was passed ordering defendant 1 to execute a lease deed in respect of the fields mentioned in the plaint on a proper stamp paper in occupancy right in favour of the respondent and to put her in possession of them.
It arises out of a suit filed by the respondent Shrimati Lilabai w o Vrijpalji, for the specific performance of a companytract to lease or in the alternative for damages and for a declaration against defendant 2, the daughter of defendant 1 that she has numberright, title or interest in the property in suit.
8,700.
On these allegations the respondent claimed specific performance of the companytract and an amount of Rs.
Defendant 2 filed a written statement companytesting the respondents claim for a declaration against her but she did number appear at the trial which proceeded exparte against her.
The learned trial judge framed appropriate issues on these pleadings and found against defendant I on all of them.
This decree was challenged by defendant 1 by his appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur.
239 of 1955.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. This is an appeal by the widow, and the minor son of Mangilal, defendant 1, and it has been filed with a certificate by the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur.
P 1 in favour of the respondent by which he had companytracted to lease to her in perpetuity in occupany right his four khudkasht lands admeasuring 95.19 acres situated in Mouza Mohammadpur in companysideration of the debt of Rs.
