I know that the agreement Exhibit A1 was number acted upon.
In the absence of the same, a temporary arrangement made to have certain funds in the account on a relevant date alone cannot be companysidered as the financial resource being available to companyplete the transaction when in addition to the said Page 13 of 29 amount, further sum was required.
75 Lakhs with interest at 9 per annum was granted.
For the sake of companyvenience and clarity the parties would be referred to in the same rank as assigned to them in the original suit wherein the respondents herein were the plaintiffs and the appellants herein were the defendants.
Whether the first plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for specific performance of the companytract?
In that background, though on the other issues framed by the Trial Court there is numberserious dispute for companysideration, the issue which arises for companysideration is as framed at Issue No.
2 relating to the readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs.
Even if the amount was number to be insisted Page 19 of 29 to be deposited in the Court, the proof of availability should have been tendered.
75 Lakhs was credited on 11.10.2007.
Through the said judgment, the decree for specific performance was declined and the alternate relief directing the appellant herein to pay the sum of Rs.
I came to know that the agreement did number materialize as the plaintiffs did number have necessary money with them.
75 lakhs was shown in the account and even if the endorsement dated 14.10.2007 at the foot of the agreement is taken numbere, the said amount should be shown to have been available with the plaintiffs even subsequent to 08.11.2007, as also on the date when the demand was made by issue of legal numberice and further when the suit was filed and specific performance was sought.
The Exhibits A6, A7 and A8 were taken numbere though it was number appropriately attested and the amount as indicated in the said documents at Rs.
According to the plaintiffs, they were ready and willing to pay the balance and secure companypletion of the transaction.
Whether the first plaintiff was ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract?
1 herein, companyveying the properties described in Item Nos.
344 of 2011.
75 lakhs was to be paid on or before 15.10.2007 subject to the defendants furnishing all documents relating to title and in that regard the companytention was also that in respect of the properties owned by Late Beena, her legal heirs being minors appropriate companyveyance was required to be made after companypleting the formalities.
75 lakhs on or before 15.10.2007.
In respect of the properties described in Item Nos.
75 Lakhs was shown to the credit, the availability of that amount subsequent to 08.11.2007 is number shown as the statement at Exhibit A5 is only for the periods 09.10.2007 to 08.11.2007.
The further companytention of the plaintiff is that Page 4 of 29 despite they being ready and willing, since the defendant did number companye forward to companyplete the transaction, they were companystrained to file this suit.
Though the said order has attained finality and to that extent the restoration of the suit was justified but the fact remains that except the statement at Exhibit A5 to indicate that the sum of Rs.
Thus, on the divergent companyclusion reached by the two Courts, companysideration is required in this appeal.
3 4, the same was number included in the judgment since the said properties involved the minors interest.
5,00,488/ and Rs.
The report of the Court Commissioner was marked as Exhibit C1 and C1 a .
In order to discharge the burden cast by the said issues, the second plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and relied upon the documents at Exhibits A1 to A13.
In that regard the plaintiffs claim that they had also kept ready the sum of Rs.
75 lakhs though appears to be a substantial sum, the readiness and willingness of the Page 8 of 29 plaintiffs with the balance sale companysideration is to be taken numbere keeping in view that the balance sale companysideration payable was also substantial.
The plaintiffs claiming to be aggrieved by the same had preferred the appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in RFA No.
Hence on exclusion of the same the remaining amount through Exhibit A11 to A13 would be insufficient to indicate that as on date of filing the suit they had the entire remaining balance sale companysideration and were ready and willing to companyplete the transaction.
75 lakhs was available in the account as on 15.10.2007.
The defendant on being served with summons had appeared and filed their written statement.
However, it was companytended that the plaintiffs did number possess the funds for paying the balance of the sale companysideration and in such event the companypletion of the transaction did number arise.
15,62,426.70/ Rs.
The High Court on companysidering the said aspect and finding that the dismissal of the suit for number depositing the entire balance sale companysideration would number be justified had restored the suit.
The High Court on the other hand has arrived at the companyclusion that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement and that they had also possessed sufficient funds to pay the remaining sale companysideration and therefore decreed the suit.
75 lakhs, there is numberserious dispute.
The total extent of property was indicated in the agreement as 12.775 acres.
It was alleged therein that since the plaintiffs did number have sufficient funds, they had entered into an agreement with regard to the same properties with one Shri Ali Khan without involving the defendants but neither the plaintiffs number the said Shri Ali Khan had the funds to pay and companyplete the transaction.
The Division Bench of the High Court through its judgment dated 21.08.2018, set aside the judgment passed by the trial companyrt and has allowed the appeal.
1, 2, 5 on the balance sale companysideration being deposited within the period of two months.
The outer limit for companypletion of the transaction was fixed as 22.01.2008.
Apart from the endorsement dated 14.10.2007 sought to be relied on by the plaintiffs to companytend that they had arranged the funds for payment of Rs.
That being the position, we have heard Shri Jayanth Muth Raj, learned Senior Advocate for the appellantsdefendants, Shri R.N. Ravindran, learned Senior Advocate for the respondentplaintiff and perused the appeal papers.
Page 3 of 29 The plaintiffs agreed to make a further payment of Rs.
Hence, the said amount will have to be taken as being made available at one point in time by juggling the figures and was number shown available Page 26 of 29 for payment at the relevant point when the suit was filed.
The Trial Court on having companysidered MADHU BALA Date 2019.08.20 165750 IST the matter has decreed the suit in part by its judgment Reason Page 1 of 29 dated 23.12.2010.
They therefore companytend that the said position was accepted by the defendants and an appropriate endorsement was made at the foot of the agreement and the defendants had companyceded that the amount payable on 15.10.2007 can be paid on the date of the companyveyance and that the documents will be satisfied prior to this date.
The plaintiffs agreed to purchase the said land at the rate of Rs.
75 Lakhs at the time of the agreement.
75 lakhs as also the manner in which the balance amount was to be paid and the transaction was to be companypleted was number disputed.
The subsequent agreement between the plaintiffs and Shri Ali Khan was marked as Exhibit X1.
3 has told me that the defendants have numberobjections in me purchasing the property.
The defendants in the suit, who are the respondents in Page 2 of 29 the appeal before the High Court are therefore before this Court claiming to be aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.08.2018 passed by the High Court in RFA No.344 of 2011.
In that regard the agreement dated 26.03.2007 was entered into and an advance of Rs.
75 lakhs was paid by the first plaintiff to the defendants.
75 lakhs which was agreed to be paid on or before 15.10.2007.
11,350 per cent of land.
75 lakhs but had number paid the same since the defendants had number furnished the proper title deeds, the plaintiffs have also sought to rely on the documents at Exhibit A5 to A13.
680/2008 assailing the said order.
75 lakhs on or before 15.10.2007 and before such time the actual measurement of the property was required to be made so as to determine the actual sale companysideration payable and to companyplete the sale transaction.
The plaintiffs companytend that defendants did number make available all the documents necessary for executing the sale deed.
Page 6 of 29 The evidence as tendered by the parties was taken numbere by the Trial Court and companycluded that the plaintiffs were number ready and willing to perform their part of the obligation under the agreement and therefore has dismissed the suit.
75 Lakhs was paid as advance and there was an offer to pay Rs.
The requirement under the agreement was for the plaintiffs to pay a further sum of Rs.
Page 5 of 29 The Trial Court, in the light of the rival pleadings had framed five issues for its companysideration which read as hereunder Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action and parties?
7,97,205/ which were in credit to the said Page 21 of 29 account was taken numbere.
The marking of the document at Exhibit A9 was objected to by the defendants.
The brief facts necessary to be numbered for the companysideration of this appeal is that the defendants are the owners of the different item of properties which are described in the schedule to the suit subject agreement dated 26.03.2007.
75 Lakhs from his bank account.
The first defendant examined himself as DW1 and examined a witness i.e., the said Shri Ali Khan as DW2 and relied upon the documents at Exhibit B1 to B25.
75 Lakhs on or before 15.10.2007.
It was accordingly companytended that the plaintiffs were number ready and willing to companyplete the transaction.
75,00,000/ Seventyfive lakhs together with 18 interest per annum as an alternative relief?
The appellants herein have accordingly been directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the Respondent No.
S. Bopanna,J. Leave granted.
Whether the first plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for realization of Rs.
75 lakhs was available during the period 11.10.2007 to 19.10.2007, numberother documents, such as fixed deposit receipt for the said amount or deposit of the very same amount in the account subsequent 08.11.2007 was produced.
Reliefs and companyts?
Page 7 of 29 In that background, in so far as the execution of the agreement dated 26.03.2007 and the payment of the advance amounting to Rs.
The appellants herein were the defendants in the suit bearing OS No.89 of 2008.
The suit in question was filed by the respondents herein seeking for a judgment and decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by dated 26.03.2007.
