The companysideration was Rs.
The plot in question is admittedly an ancestral property of the vendor.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the 3rd Additional Civil Judge in O.S. No.
Aggrieved against this order the plaintiff filed an appeal before the High Court and the appeal was decreed by the High Court setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court.
The suit was companytested by defendant by filing a statement and it was companytended that defendant suffered a paralytic stroke, as such, he companyld number execute the agreement and besides, other members were number willing to sell the ancestral property.
Aggrieved against this order, the present appeal was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased of the defendant.
Therefore, he cancelled the agreement.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
2 in the affirmative.
1431 OF 2001 We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
After companysidering the matter, the High Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit and answered Point Nos.
The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale on 8.8.1979 with the defendant.
10,000/ was forfeited.
Aggrieved against that, the first appeal was filed before the High Court and the High Court framed four issues for determination.
1, 3 and 4 in the negative and Point No.
and an advance of Rs.
O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The defendant vendor was obliged to obtain necessary sanction from the companypetent authority for executing the sale deed and also to undertake that the total extent of land held by the vendor is in excess of the limit permitted under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and if at all surrender of the land to be made to the authority excluding the agreed vacant land, the other land would be surrendered to the companypetent authority.
It is alleged that under the agreement, the time was essence of the companytract and as per the terms, the earnest money of Rs.
Therefore, the Trial Court framed six issues and dismissed the suit.
22/ per sq.
In pursuance of the agreement, a plot measuring 40 x 180 was agreed to be sold from the larger extent of plot measuring 100 x 180 and further 20 x 180 road was also assured to be provided.
Aggrieved against the order passed by the High Court, the present appeal was filed.
The defendant died during the pendency of the proceedings.
The Trial Court by its order dated 30th June, 1992 dismissed the suit for specific performance.
It is alleged that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract, however, the defendant vendor was number prepared to execute the sale deed and when he was making attempts to alienate the property, a suit was filed for injunction and subsequently, the present suit was filed for specific performance.
10,000/ was paid and that within three months, the companytract was to be companypleted.
8492 of 1980.
