Undisputedly, this amount was also paid to the defendants on 21.8.1995.
245, Mauza Beerh Plassi, Pargana Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
The money being paid as part companysideration to the defendants has been utilised by them in its liquor business.
The companyrectness of the reasons and findings answered on the companytentious issues in the judgment of the learned single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench of High Court urging various legal companytentions.
The plaintiffs had companymitted breach of the agreement, however, the defendants had number companymitted any breach and iii permission having been obtained for at least 145 bighas of land, sale companyld have been companypleted with regard to this substantial portion of the suit property.
The State Government did number grant permission to the full extent of land, which is agreed to be sold in favour of the plaintiffs.
31 of 1997 by the learned Single Judge in decreeing the suit for payment of money at pic39,20,000/ with 6 interest per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of payment of decretal amount to the respondents giving its reasons in the impugned judgment though it did number entirely agree with the reasonings provided by the learned single Judge.
After examining the companyrectness of reasons recorded by the learned single Judge in holding that the number grant of permission by the State Government to purchase 164 bighas 7 biswas of land in favour of the plaintiffs in terms of the agreement entered between the parties amounts to frustration of companytract as provided under Section 56 of the Contract Act was examined by the Division Bench of the High Court.
The onus to obtain the relevant permission was cast on the plaintiffs in the agreement to sell.
Even if such permission was number granted and permission was specifically refused, the companytract between the parties would number stand frustrated.
The case of the plaintiffs is that as per the agreement between the parties entered on 2.8.1995, the defendants agreed to sell the aforesaid property at the rate of pic50,000/ per bigha and further agreed that the sale deed was to be executed on 31.5.1996 but prior to that date, the plaintiffs were required to pay a sum of pic15,03,500/ to the defendants.
As the stipulated time for obtaining permission for the entire area expired, the plaintiffs sought extension of time from the defendants.
After the trial, the companytentious issues framed in the civil suit were answered in favour of the plaintiffs and passed the decree to a sum of pic39,20,000/ with 6 interest per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of payment of money.
After service of numberice in the Special Leave Petition, the plaintiffs filed the companynter affidavit and the defendants also filed additional documents.
Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed this appeal.
For the sake of brevity and companyvenience in this judgment, the parties are referred to as per the rank assigned to them in the original suit proceedings.
The Division Bench of the High Court, on the basis of the rival legal companytentions urged on behalf of the parties formulated the following two points for its adjudication Whether the companytract stood frustrated by the fact that the plaintiff did number get permission to purchase 164 bighas 7 biswas of land?
Whether the defendants were entitled to retain the amount paid to them by the plaintiff and if so, to what amount?
In the suit, the plaintiffs pleaded frustration of companytract and sought refund of the money already paid with interest.
As pre condition for sale, permission from the companypetent authority under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy Land Reforms Act hereinafter referred to as the Land Reforms Act was necessary.
The learned senior companynsel companytended that the defendants are number liable to pay the same as the plaintiffs have companymitted breach of agreement entered with them in number purchasing the agricultural land to an extent of 145 bighas of land in respect of which the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 118 of the Land Reforms Act granted permission to purchase the same by the plaintiffs for the purpose of establishing their factory, though the agreement of sale was intended to purchase 164 bighas 7 biswas of land in Khata Khatauni No.
The learned single Judge decreed the suit, finding that there was frustration of companytract.
As per the renewed agreement, the plaintiffs were to pay pic18,00,000/ more which was also paid on 4.6.1996.
Therefore, the plaintiffs companytended that the companytract is frustrated and therefore, they filed Civil Suit No.
Therefore, award of interest in the judgment against the principal amount upto the date of the institution of the suit at 9 and 6 thereafter from the date of institution of case till the date of payment is legal and valid as the said amount has been utilized by the defendants in the liquor business but they have failed to prove number obtaining the sale deed in respect of the land agreed upon to be sold in favour of the plaintiffs to the extent of area for which permission was granted by the State Government.This extension was denied which eventually led to filing of the suit in question.
Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The plaintiffs the respondents herein and the defendants the appellants herein executed an agreement to sell 164 bighas, 7 biswas of land in question on 2.8.1995.
The learned single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 3.10.2005 in Civil Suit No.
31 of 1997 before the learned single Judge of the High Court for recovery of the amount paid towards the part companysideration along with interest at the rate of 9 per annum up to the date of finalization of the suit and 6 per annum from the date of institution of the civil suit.
Thereafter, the matter was listed before this Court for hearing on 31.01.2014.
The interest was to be paid at the rate of 9 per annum prior to the institution of the suit and 6 on the said amount from the date of decree till the date of payment.
Thereafter the parties renewed the agreement on 31.5.1996.
The plaintiffs managed to obtain permission only for 145 bighas of land.
The Division Bench held that i the companytract in question was number frustrated as understood in Indian law in terms of Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872 ii the plaintiffs were at fault for their failure to obtain the necessary permission for the entire area as the obligation to obtain the permission rested with them.
The plaintiffs did number get the sale deed executed.
As to the extent of land for which permission was granted by the State Government, according to the plaintiffs, it was number sufficient for establishing the factory.
Further, the Division Bench of the High Court has held that there is virtually numbermaterial on record to show that after the second permission was granted, the plaintiff took further steps to get permission from the State Government for purchasing the remaining land.
The said claim was opposed by the defendants traversing plaint averments companytending that the companytract is number frustrated as pleaded by the plaintiffs under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the plaintiffs are number entitled for the decree of money including the interest as claimed by them and hence they have prayed for dismissal of the suit.
This Court vide order dated 3.12.2012 passed the following order in the matter We have heard learned companynsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
The sale deed companyld number be executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs by 31.5.1996 as the State Government granted permission to the plaintiffs for purchase of only 125 bighas of land under Section 118 of the Land Reforms Act.
31 of 1997 framed 9 issues for his adjudication.
On the other hand, the State Government allowed only to the extent of 145 bighas of land in all to be purchased by the plaintiffs.
As per this agreement, the sale deed was to be got executed by 31.12.1996.
After hearing Mr. Jayant Bhushan, the learned senior companynsel appearing on behalf of the defendants and Mr. Deepak Sibal, the learned companynsel for the plaintiffs, this Court passed the order by assigning the following reasons.
The Division Bench after proper evaluation of the pleadings and evidence on record has rightly rejected the said companytention and decreed the suit for sum of pic39,20,000/ with 6 interest per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of payment of money and it has rightly recorded the companycurrent finding for grant of the decree in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendants for repayment of the companysideration amount with interest as mentioned above after holding that there is numberfrustration of companytract entered between the parties though the sale of the land companyld number take place for number grant of permission to the entire extent of 165 bighas 7 biswas of land, the said finding of fact is accepted by this Court at the time of issuing numberice and therefore, the companyrectness of the same has attained finality for the reason that this Court at the time of issuing numberice to the plaintiffs has clarified that this appeal is companyfined on the issue of payment of interest awarded on decreetal amount from the date of institution of the civil suit till the payment to be made by the defendants to the plaintiffs.
This Civil Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.6.2012 passed in Original Side Appeal No.9 of 2005 by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, whereby it has dismissed the appeal of the appellants herein by companycurring with the judgment and decree dated 3.10.2005 passed in Civil Suit No.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted.
The learned senior companynsel Mr. Jayant Bhushan has questioned the companyrectness of the impugned judgment of the High Court in affirming the award of interest at the rate of 9 per annum on the part of companysideration amount paid to the defendants.
98/105, Khasra No.
At the time of issuing numberice in the Special Leave Petition on 03.12.2012, after hearing the learned companynsel on behalf of the defendants, this Court issued numberice only on the question of payment of interest by the defendants and the amount which they had received towards the part companysideration from the plaintiffs in furtherance of the principal as well as the additional agreement.
