The Subordinate Judge held further that time was of the essence of the companytract and there wag numberright to have the Kebalas executed after November 30, 1965.
The plaintiff on his part agreed and undertook that on such execution he would pay defendant No.
The plaintiff felt aggrieved and went up in appeal to the High Court, which took the view that there was sufficient time for the defendants to companysult their lawyers in regard to the draft Kabalas and that the plaintiff was never told that the drafts were number in companysonance with the agreement.
1, on his behalf, on November 20, 1965, but the defendants did number perform their part of the obligation.
It was agreed in terms of the companypromised petition dated May 17, 1965 that the defendants would pay Rs.
The decree was, in that case, to become infructuous.
should stand forfeited, the companytention that only one Kebala was to be executed in favour of the decree holder or his numberinee or numberinees companyld number be accepted and that there was numberjustification for the companytention that the plaintiff was in default in submitting as many as ten Kebala for execution.
The defendants companytended, however, that the drafts were handed over on November 29, 1965, in the evening, and companyld number therefore be verified by their lawyer and there was default on the part of the plaintiff who thereby forfeited his right to get the decree executed.
1 a sum of Rs.
Respondent Badri Bishal Dhandhenia filed a suit for specific performance of a companytract for the sale of certain immovable properties by the appellants.
The Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur held on July 31, 1967, that the companypromise decree was numberlonger binding on the parties and the execution application was number maintainable because the plaintiff was number intending, from the very beginning, to purchase the property himself, but waited to sell away its bulk to others profit and that the ten sale deeds which the plaintiff wanted to be executed in favour of various persons would drive the defendants to the institution of suits for recovery of money if the companysideration was number paid at the time of execution.
7000/ to the plaintiff to wards the companyts of the suit, that amount would be set off against the companysideration for the sale, and defendants 1 to 4 would execute a Kebala in favour of the plaintiff or his numberinee or numberinees in respect of the suit properties, and get the same registered by November 30, 1965.
Otherwise the earnest money etc.
The High Court also held that as the defendants had themselves stated in their application which was filed on December 1, 1965 that the plaintiff should have got the Kebalas executed by 30th of November, 1965.
1, and that if the defendant failed to execute arid register and Kebala by November 30, 1965, the plaintiff would have the right to have it executed and registered by the Court in his own favour or in favour of his numberinee or numberinees, and further that if the plaintiff failed to have the Kebala executed and registered and pay the balance of the companysideration, he would forfeit the right to recover the earnest money of Rs.
1,25,000/ after deducting Rs.
It was also held, inter alia, that the plaintiffs demand for the execution often Kebalas was the main hurdle justifying the refusal of the demand by the defendants because the defendants were number bound to execute ten Kebala.
It was pleaded that time was of the essence of the companytract.
1,694/ were purchased by him on November 20, 1965, stamps worth Rs.
1,600/ and Rs.
5,001/ from the defendants and will have numberright to get the Kebala executed.
5,001/ on account of certain money already paid by him to defendant No.
1,19,999/ on account of the balance of the companysideration of Rs.
The plaintiff companytended that stamps worth Rs.
The defendants feel aggrieved and have filed the present appeal.
2,200/ were purchased on November 30, 1965, and drafts of the sale deeds were handed over to defendant No.
The parties arrived at a companypromise, and the trial companyrt decreed the suit.
The facts giving rise to it are quite simple, and may be shortly stated.
N. Shinghal, J. This is an appeal by the defendants on a certificate to granted by the High Court of Judicature at Patna under Article 133 i a of the Constitution.
