It was recited in the agreement that the plaintiff agreed to sell the building together with pattern rights appertaining to the land admeasuring 2433 sq.
1,000/ which were expressly named and paid as earnest money.
25,000/ twenty five thousand mentioned above shall be deemed to be forfeited and the agreement cancelled.
25,000/ as damages, apart from the aforesaid sum of Rs.
if due to certain reason, any delay takes place on my part in the registration of the sale deed, by 1st June 1949, then 1, the executant, shall be liable to pay a further sum of Rs.
140/per mensem from June 1, 1949 till the date on which possession was delivered to the plaintiff such period number exceeding three years from the date of decree together with interest at the rate of six percent on the amount accruing due month after month.
The plaintiffs case as disclosed in his pleading and evidence was that he had agreed to sell to the defendant the leasehold rights in the land and building thereon purchased by him from Murli Manoharjoshi by sale deed dated April 21, 1947, that at the time of execution of the agreement the defendant had inspected the sale deed and the lease executed by the Improvement Trust dated January 30, 1947 and the sketch plan annexed to the lease, that the plaintiff had handed over to the defendant a companyy of that plan and had put the defendant in possession of the property agreed to be sold, but the defendant despite repeated requests failed and neglected to pay the balance remaining due by him and to obtain the sale deed in his favour.
Mohan Behari Lal, for the respondent.
Alleging that the agreement was rescinded because the defendant had companymitted default in performing the agreement and the sum of Rs.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 22, 1957 of the Punjab High Court in Circuit Bench at Delhi in Civil Regular First Appeal No.
Why then did the defendant number insist that the terms pleaded by him be incorporated in the agreement ?
1,000/ wire paid to him as earnest money at the time of the execution of the agreement.
In appeal the High Court of Punjab modified the decree passed by the trial Court and declared that the plaintiff was entitled to retain out of Rs.
By an agreement dated March 21, 1949 the plaintiff companytracted to sell this rights in the land and the building to Seth Fateh Chand hereinafter called the defendant.
This sum of Rs.
The plaintiff by a telegram replied that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract and called upon the defendant to obtain a sale deed.
25,000/ companysist of two items Rs.1,000/ received on March 21, 1949 and referred to in the agreement as earnest money and Rs.
The defendant resisted the claim companytending inter alia that the plaintiff having companymitted breach of the companytract companyld number forfeit the amount of Rs.
The trial judge held that the plaintiff bad failed to put the defendant in possession of the land agreed to be sold and companyld number therefore retain Rs.
On March 25, 1949, the plaintiff received Rs.
287 of 1960.
25,000/ received by him from the defendant must next be companysidered.
The defendant has appealed to this Court with certificate under Art.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, L. Bagai, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the appellant.
6,5001 as companypensation for use and occupation of the building from March 25, 1949, to January 24, 1950, and for an order directing enquiry as to companypensation for use and occupation of the land and building from the date of the institution of the suit until delivery of possession to the plaintiff.
25,000/received by him under the companytract.
Then the vendee shall have to get the sale deed registered by the 1st of June, 1949.
25,000/ paid by the defendant under the sale agreement, a sum of Rs.
24,000/ agreed to be paid by the defendant to plaintiff as out of the sale price against delivery of possession and paid by the defendant to the plaintiff on March 25, 1949 when possession of the land and building was delivered to the defendant.
11,250/ being companypensation for loss suffered by him and directed that the plaintiff do get from the defendant companypensation for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1,400/ being the amount of mesne profits prior to the date of the suit the defendant do put the plaintiff in possession of the land and the building, and awarded to the plaintiff future mesne pro fits at the rate of Rs.
This part of the case Of the plaintiff was denied by the defendant.
My client was anxious to put a wall on the side of Shri Murli Manohar joshi and when he was actually starting the work this difficulty of garage and latrine came in.
37 D of 1960.
140/ per mensem from the date of the suit until delivery of possession or until expiration of three years from the date of the decree whichever event first occurred.
80/ per mensem, and to the vendor of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.
The plaintiff submitted that the entire amount of Rs, 25,000/ was to be regarded as earnest money, and he claimed to forfeit it on the defendants failure to carry out his part of the companytract.
January 15.
The plaintiff is number only entitled to mesne profits at the monthly rate fixed by the Trial Court, but is also entitled to interest on such profits vide s. 2 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
1,12,500/ , and that Rs.
The trial Court assessed companypensation at the rate of Rs.
It is companymon ground that the defendant is liable for retaining possession to pay companypensation from June 1, 1949 till the date of the suit and thereafter under O. 20, r. 12 c C. Code till the date on which the possession was delivered.
He accordingly directed that on the plaintiff depositing Rs.
25,000/ paid by the defendant stood forfeited, the plaintiff in an action filed in the Court of the Subordinate judge, Delhi, claimed a decree for possession of the land and building described in the plaint and a decree for Rs.
Chandrawati, widow of Dr. Joshi, as guardian of her minor son Murli Manohar, by sale deed dated April 21, 1947, sold the leasehold rights in the land together with the building to Lala Balkishan Daswho will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintifffor Rs.
63,000/ .
25,000/ paid by him in the event of failure to carry out the terms of the companytract were never intended to be acted upon and were incorporated in the, agreement at the instance of the writer who wrote the deed.
3, E Block Qarol Bagh, Delhi, admeasuring 2433 sq.
Dr. Joshi companystructed a building on the land demised to him.
The other question which remains to be determined relates to the amount of mesne profits which the plaintiff is entitled to receive from the defendant who kept the plaintiff out of the property after the bargain had fallen through.
From the evidence on the record it appears that a tenant was in occupation for a long time before 1947 of the house in dispute in this appeal and another house for an aggregate rent of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. By a registered deed of lease dated May 19, 1927, which was renewed on January 30, 1947, the Delhi Improvement Trust granted leasehold rights for 90 years to one Dr. M. Joshi in respect of a plot of land No.
The companyditions of the agreement were I, the executant, shall deliver the actual possession, i. e. companyplete vacant possession of kothi bungalow to the vendee on March 30, 1949, and the vendee shall have to give another cheque for Rs.
On June 1, 1949, the defendant informed the plaintiff by a telegram that the latter was responsible for damages as he had failed to companyplete the companytract.
It was clearly understood at the time of bargain that vacant possession of the entire area under sale will be given by your client.
150/ per mensem, and that after the house in dispute was sold, the plaintiff received rent from that tenant at the rate of Rs.
The southern boundary of the land was described in the agreement Bungalow of Murli Manohar Joshi.
106/per mensem.
25,000/less Rs.
yards.
25,000/received by him number claim any companypensation.
24,000/ and delivered possession of the building and the land in his occupation to the defendant, but the sale of the property was number companypleted before the expiry of the period stipulated in the agreement.
Moreover, the vendee shall have to deliver back the companyplete vacant possession of the kothi bungalow to me, the executant.
If, on account of any reason, the vendee fails to get the said sale deed registered by June, 1949, then this sum of Rs.
25,000/ to the vendee, and the bargain shall be deemed to be cancelled.
24,000/ to me, out of the sale price.
yards for Rs.
Each party blamed the other for failing to companyplete the sale according to the terms of the agreement.
