40, 000 the value of the bungalow, to the current account of the firm of Messrs Thackersidas Nandlal, of which the plaintiffs husband and father in law were the owners and which firm was indebted in a large amount to Messrs. Gorakhram Sadhuram.
540, 000 are sold by us for Rs.
AIR 1953 SC 443 The Judgment was delivered by MAHAJAN J. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 26 1 1948 reversing the decree passed by Chagla J. on 7 7 1947.
Further the house at Kalbadevi in Bombay, the home at Gaiwadi and the bungalow at Malad which have been mortgaged for Rs.
The suit was brought by one Laxmibai, wife of Inderlal Nandlal of Malad on 26 5 1943 for specific performance of an agreement dated 29 4 1929, said to have been arrived at between her and Messrs. Gorakhram, Sadhuram, a firm carrying on business at bankers and companymission agents at Kalbadevi Road, Bombay.
As regards the ring, she was the sole promisee as it belonged to her.
In spite of the abandonment of the plea, the point was argued at the hearing.
It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by S. 66, CPC, but number issue was raised on the point and the plea was later on abandoned.
3, 15, 000 are sold by us to you for Rs.
3, 15, We shall execute any documents which you may ask us to do at the time you got the same transferred to your name.
The letter of acceptance given by the appellants accepted this proposal.
This was made absolute on 8 4 1926.
He further held that the suit was barred by S. 66, CPC This decision was reversed in appeal by Bhagwati and Tendolkar.
on the finding that the plaintiff was a party to the agreement and was ready and willing to perform her part of the companytract.
The appellants agreed to this.
40, 000 had to be debited on account of the firm.
Please read Jaigopal salutations of Nandlal and Inderlal Nandlal.
The terms of the agreement are companytained in two letters dated 29 8 1929 and 30 8 1929.
The oral evidence in the case companysists of the depositions of three witnesses, namely, the plaintiff, her husband, Inderlal Nandlal, and her son Kanhaiyalal.
In the year 1931 the plaintiffs father in law died.
Further, our two ginning factories and one pressing factory together with the companypound etc.
4, 40, 000 as follows The house at Kalbadevi l, 15, 000 and the bungalow at Malad for Rs.
The letters are in these terms To Shahji Gorakhramji Sadhuramji.
40, 000.
In the year 1925 a suit was brought on this mortgage and a preliminary decree passed in favour of the appellant on 15 4 1925.
The principal defence to the suit was that the plaintiff was number a party to the agreement and companyld number therefore sue upon it.
The letters are number formal legal documents and number question was raised that the parties were number ad idem about the terms of the arrangement.
As a matter of fact, the taxes were paid by the appellants and subsequently recovered in cash from the plaintiff either directly or through her husband.
40, 000, the price fixed for the companyveyance of the house.
It was further held that the suit was number barred by S. 66 CPC.
Her husband was adjudicated insolvent a few months after the institution of the suit.
at Panderkowda which were mortgaged with you for Rs.
Proceedings in execution of the final decree were pending when on 28 8 1929 the agreement in dispute was made.
In the letter of acceptance the appellants were treating the mortgagors and their family including the plaintiff as one group because it is obvious enough that the transfer of the house in the name of the plaintiff was with the intention of benefiting her, her children, and, as a matter of fact, the whole family.
Further, you have obtained a decree against us and also obtained an order for auction sale by the Commissioner.
5, 89, 000 with future interest.
Further, your letter dated 10th of Bhadarva Vad i.e. 30 8 1929 is received.
Chagla J. dismissed the plaintiffs suit and held that the plaintiff number being a party to the agreement, companyld number claim specific performance of it.
By the agreement the defendants were to transfer the bungalow in suit at Malad to the name of the respondent whenever demanded on payment of companyts of such transfer and were to debit the sum of Rs.
This aspect of the case, however, was number pressed before the Court of appeal by the companynsel for the respondent and was number agitated before us.
