The defendants respondents had agreed to sell to the appellant first plaintiff about 38 grounds of land mentioned in A Schedule to the plaint to develop the area into a housing companyony.
As per the agreement, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the property from the defendant at a companysolidated price to be calculated at the rate of Rs.
This suit was companytested as defendant denied that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract.
8,500/ per ground for the bare land and an additional price to be fixed of the superstructure after getting its valuation from the companypetent engineer or architect as per the agreement.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that willingness and readiness is numberdoubt pleaded but they led numberevidence to prove it.
On the date of the aforesaid agreement Rs.
An obligation was cast under the agreement on the plaintiff to obtain such permission.
Thereafter, the present suit was filed by the appellant for the specific performance of the said companytract for executing a sale deed.
On the companytrary he did number perform his part of the obligation under the said companytract.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit of the appellants, which is companyfirmed by the High Court.
For this, the appellants rely on two circumstances, one that immediately after the exemption was given by the Ceiling Authorities on the 31st March, 1982, the present suit was filed in April, 1982 and the other the tendering of further sum of Rs.
This agreement was, of companyrse, subject to the permission to be granted to the defendant under Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act Act 24 of 1978 .
5,000/ was paid by the first plaintiff to the defendant.
The defendants application initially to the authorities for the declaration of the exemption from the operation of the aforesaid Act was rejected.
Aggrieved by that the present appeal has been preferred.
5,000/ to the defendant after execution of the agreement of sale.
However, later the plaintiff was informed by the defendant that a companymunication dated 31st March, 1982 has been received by the defendant that exemption for the part of the land has been granted under the said Act.
The appellants plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a companytract dated 10th August, 1980 for the sale of an immovable property in accordance with the terms of that companytract.
Thus held, that the plaintiff is number entitled for the decree of specific performance.
P. Misra, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th August, 1992 passed by the High Court companyfirming the dismissal of the suit for specific performance.
