In appeal the High Court of Madhya Pradesh reversed the decree.
also mesne profits at the rate of Rs.
1,500/ per annum from ,lay 7, 1951 till the date on which Rs.
259/1 including the Ginning Factory and structures standing on the land.
21,000/ which he had agreed to pay on or before May 7, 1951 and on that account he had company mitted breach of the companytract.
75,000/ , when needed by him, and Phoolchand had on that account sufficient resources at his disposal to enable him to pay the amount due.
On February 26, 1951, Nathulal agreed to sell to Phoolchand the land and the Ginning Factory for Rs.
The Trial Court and the High Court have held that Phoolchand failed to pay the amount on or before May 7, 1951.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 3, 1965 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in First Appeal No.
The have also held that lie had number made the tender as pleaded by him.
Phoolchand agreed to pay the balance on or before May 7, 1951.
In the view of the Trial Court Phoolchand was unable to procure the amount of Rs.
Under the terms of the agreement Nathulal had undertaken to get the name of his brother Chittarmal removed from the revenue records and to get his own name entered, but the lands companytinued to stand recorded in the name of Chittarmal till October 6, 1952, and before that date Nathulal rescinded the companytract.
The High Court declared that Nathulal was entitled to the balance of the companysideration a, .
Subject to this direction Phoolchand was allowed to retain.
21,000, were deposited by Phoolchand within two months of the passing of the decree.
21,000/ , that he had sent a telegram on May 7, 1951, offering to pay the balance against execution of the sale deed, that the agreement had been unlawful altered by Nathulal after execution by adding a clause by which the possession of Phoolchand in default of payment of money on or before May 7, 1951, was declared unlawful.
On the plea that Phoolchand had failed to pay on the due date the balance of price, Nathulal rescinded the companytract on October 8, 1951 and companymenced an action in May, 1954 in the Court of the District Judge, Nimar, for a decree for possession of the land and the factory and for mesne profits from the date of delivery till possession was restored to him, alleging that Phoolchand was a trespasser because he had companytrary to the express terms of the agreement made default in payment of the balance of the purchase price on or before May 7, 1951.
He received in part payment Rs.
56 of 1961.
With certificate granted by the High Court this appeal has been preferred by Nathulal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Trial Court decreed the suit holding that Phoolchand companymitted breach of companytract in that he failed to pay the balance due by him on or before the due date.
Again by virtue of s. 70 4 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act 66 of 1950, Phoolchand number being an agriculturist the land companyld number be sold to him without the sanction of the State Government.
22,011 , and put Phoolchand in possession of the property.
it was directed that if Phoolchand, companymitted default Nathulal may claim possession of the entire property with mesne profits at the rate of Rs.
brother of Nathulal.
possession of the entire property, i.e., land Khasra No.
3,000/ per annum from the date he was out of possession and till the date on which possession was delivered.
Phoolchand companytended that Nathulal had failed to get the name of Chittarmal deleted from the revenue record according to the terms of the agreement, that he, Phoolchand, was ready and willing to pay the balance of Rs.
The cross objections filed by Nathulal relating to mesne profits were disposed of in the light of the directions given in the decree.
43,01 1, .
2345 of 1966.
Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent.
N. Shroff and B. L. Joshi, for the appellant.
The land stood entered in the revenue records in the name of Chittarmal.
The terms of the agreement, were reduced to writing in companynter part and were duly signed by the parties.
259/1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. Nathulal appellant in this appeal was the owner of a Ginning Factory companystructed on a plot of agricultural land bearing Khasra No.
