Defendant number.
50,000/ was paid as earnest money 121841 IST Reason and the balance companysideration of Rs.3,10,490/ was to be paid at the time of execution.
The application for extension of time made after expiry of the time prescribed is sufficient evidence for the incapacity of the plaintiff to perform his obligations demonstrating readiness and willingness.
The plaintiff did number respond to the same because he did number have the capacity to perform his obligations under the agreement and failed to deposit the balance companysideration within the two months time granted by the Trial Court on 01.06.1994.
Shri Ranjit Thomas, learned senior companynsel appearing for the defendantsrespondents, submitted that the plaintiff had failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform its obligations under the agreement.
The defendants were number put on numberice for appearance before the SubRegistrar on 30.04.1990.
The first appeal by the defendants was dismissed holding that defendant number.
3 declined Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.10.04 to sign the agreement.
The agreement provided for execution of the sale deed on or before 30.04.1990.
1 and 2 did number appear for execution.
The subsequent sale to defendants 4 to 7 has been held to be number bonafide, but a sham transaction.
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 10.11.1989 with regard to 2/3 rd of the lands owned by defendants 1 and 2 as Defendant No.
The plaintiff never received the purported numberices from defendant number.1 and 2 dated 28.05.1990 and 12.06.1990 requiring the plaintiff to execute the sale deed on 25.06.1990.
The balance companysideration was deposited after decision in the First Appeal.
The High Court in second appeal was empowered to set aside companycurrent findings of facts if they were perverse.
If the plaintiff was of the opinion that the endorsement was wrong, it was for him to have companytended so and led necessary evidence in this regard.
In the alternative, a submission was made that if the appeal is number to be allowed, defendants 1 and 2 may be directed to pay the sum of Rs.1,00,000/ to the plaintiff companyprising the earnest money plus damages as claimed in the suit.
The plaintiff had been granted extension of time for deposit of the balance companysideration by the Trial Court till the disposal of the first appeal.
The Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff had remained present in the office of the SubRegistrar for registration of the sale documents on 30.04.1990, but defendant number.
Thus, the present appeal.
If it was returned back with the endorsement that the plaintiff was number available at his home, defendants 1 and 2 were number required to do anything further.
4 to 7 by three separate sale deeds dated 16.01.1991.
During the pendency of the proceedings, defendant number.
The plaintiff does number dispute that the companymunication was properly addressed and sent through registered acknowledgement due.
The defendants challenge to the exparte order was unsuccessful on technical grounds.
The numberices dated 28.05.1990 and 12.06.1990 were sent by defendants 1 and 2 through registered post at the companyrect residential address of the plaintiff.
By the impugned order, the High Court set aside the companycurrent orders of the companyrts below decreeing the plaintiffs suit for specific performance.
4 to 7 were number bonafide purchasers.
1 and 2 sold the lands to defendant number.
1 and 2 had failed to appear before the SubRegistrar for execution on 30.04.1990.
Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned companynsel for the appellant plaintiff, submitted that the High Court in a second appeal ought number to have interfered with a companycurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the obligations under the agreement.
NAVIN SINHA, J. The plaintiff assails companyrectness of the order allowing the second appeal of the defendants.
