517/70, The First Appellate Court, on reappreciation of the pleadings and evidence, found that the permission granted by the MEO for the transfer of the suit property was number companyditional and that the Vendee was number entitled to wringle out of the Sale Agreement that there were numberresumption proceedings pending at the tune of or prior to the Sale Agreement that the Vendee knew that it is for her to get the permission from the MEO and that the amount paid by the Vendee being the earnest money and she, having companymitted a default, cannot ask for refund of the said money.
11,000 companytending, inter alia, that the understanding was that the Vendors would get unconditional permission from the MEO, Meerut, for the transfer that the Vendors have cunningly incorporated in the said Agreement that the permission from the MEO for the agreed sale shall be obtained by the Vendees that there were minors among the Vendors and by companycealing that factor the Agreement was entered into and that there were already proceedings pending for the resumption of the Suit property.
According to the Vendors, the express term of the Agreement was that it was for the vendee to obtain the permission for transfer of the property from the MEO that there were numberminors among the Vendors on the date of the Agreement as alleged that there were numberproceedings pending for resumption as pleaded in the plaint and that the Vendee was fully aware of the companydition that she had to get the permission from the MEO for the sale of the property.
A learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court was of the view that the Second Appeal companyld be decided on a single point, namely, whether the companyditional permission given by the MEO would amount to numberpermission at all and, therefore, me Vendee was number obliged to go ahead with the Sale Agreement and companysequently she can claim for refund of the earnest money paid for the purchase of the property.
The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings and evidence, found that the Vendee was entitled to get back the money as the companyditional permission given by the MEO would amount to numberpermission at all and the Vendee was number obliged to purchase the property.
The High Court companystrued that the permission given by the MEO being companyditional one, would amount to numberpermission and, therefore, the Vendee was entitled to rescind the companytract and claim for refund of the earnest money.
11,000 was paid as earnest money to the Vendors on 11.10.65.
1103/73, is Can a party purchaser to a sale agreement of a property in Cantonment Area rescind the companytract on the ground that the permission given by the Military Estate Officer for short MEO was companyditional, when under the companytract the purchaser had undertaken to get, the permission.
258 and 258A situated at old Grant on the Mall Road in the cantonment Area, Meerut.
On the basis of these findings, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the Vendee.
The Vendors, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Courts preferred an appeal to the Additional District Judge, Meerut, in Civil Appeal No.
The first respondent hereinafter called the Vendee entered into an Agreement with the appellants Vendors on 3.11.65 for the purchases of the suit property for companysideration of Rs.
The Vendors resisted the suit denying each and every one of the , allegations in the plaint.
The appellants hereinafter called the Vendors are the owners of the suit property.
The Vendee filed a suit for recovery of the said amount of Rs.
On the basis of the above allegations, the suit for recovery of the earnest money was filed.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the Vendee preferred a Second Appeal No.
1103 of 1973 before the Allahabad High Court.
Brief facts are as under The property in question is a bungalow on Plot Nos.
In terms of the Agreement, a sum of Rs.
70,000.
