As the market price of the agricultural lands have number gone up, the plaintiffs by purchasing the suit lands are intending to dispose of the same to others at a higher price.
Having regard to the terms of agreement of sale dated 31.07.1985, reasonings of the trial Court as well as the High Court and submissions before this Court, only two points arise for companysideration of this Court, namely, a whether time is the essence of the companytract?
Brief facts in a nutshell are The appellants plaintiffs in special civil suit No.
209 respectively admeasuring Area H. 0.60 R and H. 0.40 R of Village Nagaon in Hatkanangale Tahsil.
Kamal Rani Smt.
743 of 1993 in and by which the High Court set aside the decree for specific performance granted by the trial Court and companysequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.
According to the plaintiffs, the respondent herein defendant is the owner of land Block No.
The plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract but the defendant avoided to receive the balance amount of companysideration and neglected to execute the sale deed.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court number in agreement with the companyclusion of the trial Court and finding that plaintiffs failed to substantiate their plea allowed the appeal of the defendant and dismissed the suit.
3 of 2005.
The defendant had entered into an agreement for sale of the said lands to the plaintiffs for a companysideration of Rs.85,000/ per acre.
In spite of the numberice, the defendant did number companyply with the requirements which necessitated the plaintiffs to file the suit for specific performance or in the alternative refund of earnest money with interest thereon 15 per annum.
In view of the same, the plaintiffs are number entitled to discretionary relief of specific performance of companytract.
He had called upon the plaintiffs to pay the balance amount of companysideration and get the sale deed executed.
It was agreed that possession of the lands was to be delivered at the time of execution of sale deed.
But the plaintiffs were number in a position to arrange the balance amount of companysideration and companyplete the companytract.
16694 OF 2005 Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
dated 31/7/1985.
The plaintiffs sent a legal numberice on 16.07.1988 to the defendant through their advocate calling upon him to perform his part of the obligation under the companytract.
On the date of execution of the agreement, an amount of Rs.20,000/ was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant as earnest money and balance amount of the companysideration was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.
We heard Mr. Makarand D. Adkar, learned companynsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. V.N. Ganpule, learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondent, perused the entire annexures and other relevant materials filed before this Court.
During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, Balasaheb Dayandeo Naik first plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record as per order dated 19.09.2006 in I.A. No.
Questioning the judgment and order of the High Court, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal by way of special leave.
In Chand Rani Smt.
743 of 1993 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
The above mentioned details in the agreement of sale clearly show a that the subject matter of the property is an agricultural land immoveable properties b the sale deed is to be executed within six months from the date of sale agreement i.e. 31.07.1985.
It was further stated that though agreement for sale of the suit lands was entered into between him and the plaintiffs on 31.07.1985, the sale deed was to be executed within a period of six months from the date of companytract as he was in dire need of money for companystruction of his house and, therefore, the time was the essence of the companytract.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court, the defendant filed First Appeal No.
Arising out of SLP C No.
320 of 1988 filed the same for specific performance of agreement dated 31.07.1985.
The defendant filed a written statement wherein he denied the plaintiffs claim.
The defendant has also undertaken the responsibility of obtaining necessary permission for sale of the lands, if required.
208 and Block No.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in First Appeal No.
The learned Civil Judge Senior Division , on 23.02.1993, after finding that the defendant has failed to prove that time was the essence of companytract and the plaintiffs were and are ready and willing to perform their part of companytract decreed the suit as prayed for.
c possession of the land to be handed over at the time of execution of sale deed d failure to get execute the sale deed, the earnest money will be forfeited.
The agreement was reduced into writing and according to the terms of the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed by the defendant within a period of six months.
dead by LRs.
and b whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform the companytract?
