This being the case, the Court ordered specific performance as the balance sale companysideration had already been deposited into the Court on the date of the filing of the Suit.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court reversed the companycurrent judgments and held, on a companystruction of the CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The letter then goes on to state that repeated calls were made and that the plaintiff is ready with the balance money, and that the defendant should companye forward immediately to discharge the mortgage, get all documents from the mortgagee, and register the sale deed.
The same was the fate of another legal numberice on the very next date, i.e., 19.12.2002.
The first appeal from the aforesaid judgment was dismissed on 20.12.2010 by the Principal District Judge.
It also went on to hold that the two letters dated 18.12.2002 and 19.12.2002 companyld number have been said to have been served on the defendant and hence were number proved.
To this numberice, CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The District Judge found companycurrently for the plaintiff on all the points argued and hence dismissed the first appeal.
This registered A.D. letter was returned to the sender stating that the addressee did number receive the same for the past one week.
2420 OF 2018 agreement, that since only three months were given to companyplete the sale transaction, time was of essence.
Though the suit was filed belatedly, the trial Court felt that as the defendant did number furnish the address of his mortgagee or take steps to clear the mortgage, it was clear that the defendant was attempting to wriggle out of the agreement.
2420 OF 2018 which was admittedly received by the defendant at the very same address, numberreply was given.
Thereafter, the present suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff in February, 2005.
Further, the plaintiffs readiness and willingness was proved by the fact that he has necessary funds as on the date of the agreement, and thereafter, as was stated by him in his letter dated 18.12.2002.
Soon after the agreement, the plaintiff sent a registered letter dated 18.12.2002 to the present address of the defendant reminding the defendant that Rs.5000/ had been received on the date of signing the agreement and Rs.60,000/ had been received on 14.10.2002.
Given these facts, the trial Court, by its judgment dated 12.09.2008, held that the suit agreement was proved and that three numberices sent by the plaintiff were also proved, it being clear that the defendant was attempting to wriggle out of his obligations under the agreement.
Despite this, the original title documents were number obtained from the mortgagee and hence the mortgage companyld number be discharged.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
F. NARIMAN, J. In the present appeal, despite service of numberice, numberody appears for the respondent.
The sale price of the property mentioned in the schedule hereunder shall be Rs.3,65,000/ Rupees Three Lakhs and Sixty Five Thousand only .
Finally, on 07.07.2003, the plaintiff sent a legal numberice referring to the earlier legal numberice of 19.12.2002 and called upon the defendant to immediately companyply with the terms of the agreement.
