The plaintiff states that the appellants had numberice of his prior agreement.
410 of 1943, arising out of the judgment and Decree, dated the 28th April, 1943, of the Court of the first Civil judge of Meerut in Original Suit No.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree, dated the 12th May, 1949, of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad Seth, Agarwal and Wanchoo JJ.
62,000.
The matter was accordingly referred to, a Full Bench of three Judges.
10,000 to the Nawab on 7th February, 1942, by two cheques.
72,000.
But all those positions were abandoned in this companyrt and the only point argued, aside from certain subsidiary ones with which we shall deal later, was whether the parties reached finality on 7th February, 1942.
The plaintiff said the appellants paid the Nawab, Rs.
4 ,of 1942.
62,000 to companypensate them for the Rs 58,000 which they said they had paid to the Nawab for their subsequent purchase and for the loss of the property.
The Nawab accepted this money and cashed the cheques and the money went into his own account in his bank.
The fears of the parties regarding the Custodian, U. P., were justified, for he refused to companypromise and claimed the Rs.
They raised a number of other defences such as misrepresentation and fraud, an agreement with the Nawab prior to that ,of the plaintiff, lack of knowledge of the plaintiffs agreement and so forth.
25 calls upon the Nawab to companyplete the companyveyance as agreed to and the plaint is to the same effect it says numberhing about a warranty.
The initial burden is on him.
In the High Court the appellate Bench which heard the appeal differed.
Later, namely on 4th April, 1942, the Nawab sold the same property to the appellants for a sum of Rs.
The learned trial judge held, among other things,, that there was numberconcluded companytract and so dismissed the.
Harish Chandra J. held that the parties reached finality while Kaul J. differing from him agreed with the trial companyrt and held they had number.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On the companytrary, the plaintiffs letter, dated 22nd April, 1942, Ex.
62,000 and accepted Rs.
S. Pathak G. C. Mathur, with him for respondent No.
10,000 as earnest money the same day.
The first is that he paid a sum of Rs.
The judgment of the companyrt was delivered by BOSE J. This appeal arises out of a vendees suit for specific performance of a companytract of sale dated 7th February, 1942.
K. Dar Ram Kumar and B. S. Shastri, with him for the appellants.
1 N. C. Jain.He relies on two facts in the plaint.
72,000 and number Rs.
In view of this, the appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs suit was decreed on companydition that the plaintiff deposit Rs.
The vendor is the first defendant I whom we will call the Nawab as that is how he has been referred to in the companyrts below He is number in Pakistan and his property has been taken over by the ,Custodian, U. P. The plaintiff is the vendee and the second and third defendants, who appeal, are subsequent purchasers.
The second is that the Nawab gave the plaintiff a receipt on that date for this money.
All three held that there was a companycluded companytract.
7th February, 1942.
86 of 1950.
in First Appeal No.
The plaintiff founds on a companytract which the defendants deny.
1953 November 18.
62,000 for the companytract of sale of the plaint property through Babu Chhater Sen and executed a receipt.
The only question which we are asked to decide here, except for certain subsidiary matters, is whether the agreement of 7th February, 1942, was a companycluded one.
Jagdish Chandra for the Custodian of Evacuee Property.
The plaintiffs case is that on that date the Nawab agreed to sell the plaint property to him for Rs.
The appellants case is that the plaintiffs so called agreement of 7th February, 1942, was number a companycluded one as the parties never reached finality.
He must therefore prove it.
