Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 22 3 77 of the Madras High Court in C.M.P. Nos.
Ultimately, on two applications, one by the plaintiff appellant and the other by the defendant respondent the companyrt made a judgment which is the subject matter of this appeal.
Read in the light of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and the rulings on the point which were cited before us, the proper companyrse in this situation was to pass a decree for specific performance, which would, for all practical purposes, be a preliminary decree.
Various skirmishes, essentially of an interlocutory nature, took place.
5,000 had already been paid at the time of the agreement and possession had been made over to the plaintiff by the defendant.
4 lakhs way back in April 1967.
This was subject to an equitable mortgage over the property in favour of the South Indian Bank, Coimbatore.
The amount was number deposited within the time limited but some months later the plaintiff paid the mortgage money to the mortgagee bank and took an assignment of its rights and got herself impleaded as second plaintiff in the suit which, by then, had been instituted by the bank against the present defendant O.S No.
The respondent owned a lovely mansion on the Marina in Madras which he agreed to sell to the appellant for a companysideration of around Rs.
Eventually, the mortgage suit resulted in a decree in favour of the present plaintiff second plaintiff therein and the amount number due has, by number, swollen to around Rs.
11 lakhs or so.
Surely, this was number companysistent with the understanding assumed under the companytract.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
A suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell was brought where both sides took up unrighteous positions, and the trial companyrt the original side of the High Court of Madras decreed the suit directing the plaintiff to deposit the mortgage amount plus Rs.
The companyrt, while affirming that the direction to make a deposit into companyrt within three months was valid, vacated the default clause, namely, the dismissal of the suit on number payment within the time.
That was number granted.
An appeal had been carried by the plaintiff appellant to a Division Bench of the High Court which rejected most of her companytentions except one.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J Writes A. G. Gardiner, if we may start off with a strange flourish, that the supreme art is to achieve the maximum result with the minimum effort.
154 of 1968 .
When the two separated litigation erupted.
The suit would companytinue and be under the companytrol of the companyrt until appropriate motion was made by either party for passing a final decree.
The appellant plaintiff, a woman was on terms of intimacy with the respondent defendant, a wealthy man who had enjoyed a long and intimate relationship with her.
K. Sen In C.A. 1993 , Mrs. Shyamala Pappu C.A. 1994 , and A. V. Rangam for the Respondent.
The plaintiff appellant moved the companyrt by interlocutory applications for giving credit to the amount paid by her to the mortgagee bank and to pass a final decree in her favour.
R.M. Abdul Karim and S. Shaukat Hussain for the Appellant.
1993 1994 or 1977.
The whole companysideration, except the mortgage amount and a sum of Rs.
The plaintiffs application was dismissed and extension of time by way of adjustment of the mortgage amount paid was refused and a decree for recession of the companytract for sale was passed and for delivery of possession with mesne profits.
5,000 with interest at 11 per cent till the date of payment.
3449 and 3563 of 1976.
The decree also provided that the amount should be deposited into companyrt by the time specified therein, failure to do which would result in the suit itself being dismissed.
