The High Court inter alia companysidering the stipulations made in agreement for sale and other evidences brought on records, opined It was for the defendant to bear the companyversion expenses.
238 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by Respondent No.
1 rests in favour of the appellant and further the finding of the lower appellate companyrt for the plaintiff was number ready and willing to perform his part of companytract is with a basis and as such the same is to be reversed and as also the 2nd substantial question of law to be held in favour of the appellant.
It applied the provisions companytained in Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act directing refund of the earnest amount only in a mechanical manner.
ii Whether the appellate companyrt is justified in holding that the plaintiff was number ever ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract?
The said suit was dismissed.
1 was number always ready and willing to perform its part of companytract and somehow wanted to transfer liability on the defendant as regards companyversion fine and measurement charges.
The First Appellate Court in arriving at its decision inter alia held Respondent No.
1 for sale of 4 acres, 4 guntas of land in Survey No.
1 number only paid a sum of Rs.
P.1 in the proper perspective and rejecting for specific performance.
1 did number approach the companyrt with clean hands and, thus, was number entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance of companytract.
1 that it was ready and willing to forgo four guntas of land was held by the High Court sufficient to meet the demand of the defendant appellant stating For the foregoing reasons, it is to be held that both the Court below have erred in interpreting Ex.
1 was always ready and willing to perform its part of companytract was number companyrect.
The findings of the Trial Court that the plaintiff Respondent No.
The First Appellate Court failed to interpret the clauses of the agreement in their proper perspective.
1 was all along ready and willing to perform its part of companytract.
Respondent No.
A suit for specific performance of companytract was filed by the plaintiff Respondent No.
1 before the High Court, the following substantial questions of law were framed Whether both the companyrts have erred in refusing the specific performance although the respondents received full companysideration amount and a sum of Rs.
94,000/ and odd was paid to him, he was bound to perform his part of companytract by executing a deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff Respondent No.
1 without any reason withheld payment of balance companysideration of Rs.
An agreement for sale was entered into by and between the defendant appellant and the plaintiff Respondent No.
It was, however, inter alia held by the Trial Court that Respondent No.
Arising out of SLP Civil No.
24595 of 2005 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
8,000/ towards development charges?
The plaintiff Respondent No.
An appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondent No.
13,100/ and, thus, failed to perform its part of companytract.
iii Whether the companyrts below have number companymitted any error in directing to refund the earnest money?
1 on the premise that the appellant did number perform his part of companytract.
1 was dismissed.
Respondent No.
On a second appeal having been preferred by Respondent No.
The plea of Respondent No.
Admittedly when the amount of Rs.
Defendant in a suit for specific performance of companytract is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 15.09.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in R.S. A. No.
1 herein arising out of a judgment and decree dated 25.01.2000 passed in R.A. No.
112/A, Chhidri village.
5 of 1992 was dismissed.
