The further case of the plaintiff was that though he was all along ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract, the defendant on the plea of pendency of proceeding before the Authority, under the Act delayed, execution of the document and subsequently declined to execute the sale deed.
5000/ with interest as damages to the plaintiff.
On the pleadings of the parties, the trial companyrt framed six issues including whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract since the date of companytract and on the date of the suit?
However, the High Court, granted the alternative relief of refund of the companysideration paid and for damages of Rs.
The appellant filed the Suit No.
The plaintiff in the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale of immovable property, filed this appeal assailing the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in F.A. No.
5000/ and other companysequential reliefs.
The companyrt took the view that there was numberjustification shown for the delay on the part of the plaintiff in filing the suit after such a long lapse of time and therefore the relief of specific performance of companytract companyld be denied to him though the suit was filed within the period of limitation.
5,000/ .
Whether the defendant companymitted breach of the agreement of sale in respect of the property in dispute?
31,350/ with the stipulation Inter alia that the defendant will take steps for obtaining permission for sale of the property under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulations Act, 1978 and on obtaining such permission, will intimate the plaintiff and after receipt of such intimation, the plaintiff will take steps for payment of the balance companysideration money and for execution of the sale deed within five months.
The case of the defendant, shorn of unnecessary details, is that she obtained permission for sale of the suit property on 18th of December, 1975, thereafter she approached the plaintiff for execution of the sale deed, which the plaintiff failed to companyply and subsequently informed her that he was number interested in purchasing the property.
The trial companyrt answered these issues and other relevant issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for specific performance of companytract.
In the appeal filed by the defendant, the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial companyrt and declined relief of specific performance of companytract solely on the ground of unexplained delay.
123 of 1978 in the companyrt of civil judge, Saharanpur on 1.6.1978, seeking a decree of specific performance of the agreement of sale of the suit property or in the alternative for a decree for refund of the companysideration money and damages of Rs.
The High Court declined to grant the plaintiffs prayer for specific performance of the agreement of sale.
The case of the plaintiff shortly stated is that he had entered into an agreement with the defendant on 10th of January, 1975 for sale of the suit property in his favour for a companysideration of Rs.
Hence this appeal by the plaintiff.
486 of 1980 in which the High Court set aside the judgment of the trial companyrt, decreed the suit in part and granted the alternative relief sought in the plaint for refund of the companysideration paid and awarded a sum of Rs.
