30,000 was paid by way of earnest money.
This agreement was entered into through the husband of Chand Rani, Niranjan Nath.
She failed to perform her part of the companytract.
In the result, the decree for specific performance was set aside.
463 of 1971 for specific performance.
15 of 1975 dated 26.10.79, reversing the decree for specific performance passed by the learned Single Judge in O.S. No.
1,50,000 including the refund of Rs.
98,000 by 6th of September, 1971.
At the time of this agreement the first floor of the house had been let out to tenants.
Since the plaintiff had failed to pay the sum of Rs.
On the date of execution a sum of Rs.
To this effect the defendant addressed a letter on 15.9.71.
50,000 was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed.
The vendor was also to obtain the income tax clearance certificate.
98,000 by 6.9.71 was number the essence of the companytract.
Likewise, the receipt of the sum of Rs.
The sum of Rs.
15/75.
It was further agreed that the amount of Rs.
30,000.
30,000.
The insistence of the plaintiffs to obtain the income tax clearance certificate and redemption of the property before the payment of Rs.
1,78,000 in favour of Chand Rani.
The property was mortgaged with the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
To this effect, a decree was granted in their favour.
yards with a double storeyed residential building companystructed thereon along with fittings and fixtures for a sum of Rs.
The husband of the first plaintiff wanted possession of the ground floor before payment of Rs.
98,000.
allowed to be withdrawn.
Stay appln.
The balance of Rs.
The plaintiff never tendered a sum of Rs.
In reply to the said letter the plaintiff wrote to the defendant calling upon her to execute the sale deed offering to pay the remaining companysideration at the time of the execution of the sale deed.
This demand was companytrary to the terms of the agreement.
The agreement stipulated that a further sum of Rs.
Inasmuch as the said amount was number paid the defendant was entitled to treat the companytract as having become null and void.
98,000 from my clientess.
It was agreed between the parties that Kamal Rani, the vendor would redeem the property by paying off a loan of Rs.
In defence, the execution of the suit agreement was admitted.
Since the defendant failed to companyply with this demand the suit came to be filed claiming specific performance of the agreement or in the alternative, damages in the sum of Rs.
Pending civil appeal, both the appellant, Chand Rani plaintiff and respondent, Kamal Rani defendant died.
30,000 stood forfeited.
30 Block K, Green Park, New Delhi Village Kharera measuring 311 sq.
30,000 would stand forfeited in favour of the vendor should the vendee fail to pay the sale companysideration and get the sale deed registered within the agreed time.
The possession of the first floor was required to be given at the time of registration of the sale deed.
No doubt, the defendant was to redeem the suit property and to deliver the documents by 30.9.71, However, this had to be done only on payment of Rs.
In fact, the first floor had been got vacant from the tenants by 20.9.71.
However, this stand was taken that the payment of Rs.
30,000 rupees thirty thousand only shall stand forfeited to the 1st party and this agreement deemed null and void.
On trial, the learned Single Judge held that on a reading of the suit agreement payment of Rs.
Based on this agreement Chand Rani and her husband filed O.S. No.
98,000 was payable within 10 days of the execution of the agreement.
Mohan, J. This appeal by special leave is preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi passed in R.F.A. O.S. No.
Whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract?
The front portion of the house was already in her possession and delivery thereof companyld easily be made at the relevant time.
Such an insistence companyld only be regarded as trying to vary the terms of the agreement.
Then companyes the question as to the payment of Rs.
98,000 was unjustified.
30,000 paid at the time of execution.
Challenging the same, special leave to appeal was preferred.
It was alleged that though the defendant Kamal Rani was called upon to companyplete the sale through various letters and numberices, they evoked numberresponse.
Two important points came up for companysideration to the trial companyrt.
He further companycluded that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract and it was the defendant who was trying to resile from the terms of the companytract.
That the 1st party shall pay all taxes, rates municipal taxes upto the date of registration of the sale deed and that the previous deeds and other documents pertaining to the said plot No.
25,000 out of a sum of Rs.
98,000 within 10 days from the date of the execution of the agreement was the essence of the companytract.
98,000 within 10 days of the execution of the agreement.
Under these circumstances, the suit is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
30,000 stood rightly forfeited against her.
On the whole, the transaction failed primarily on account of number payment of Rs.
It is under these circumstances, the present civil appeal companyes before us.
98,000.
The sale deed was to be executed on or before 31.10.71.
Aggrieved by the same, the matter was taken up in appeal under R.F.A. O.S No.
98,000 by the plaintiffs on or before 6.9.71 would entitle the defendant to treat it as a breach of companytract.
In view of this, he decreed the suit.
Therefore, the defendant was number willing to accede to the demand.
30, block K, sanctioned plan and companypletion certificates from Municipal Corporation of Delhi in respect of the superstructure built on the said plot shall be handed over alongwith the vacant possession of first floor by 30.9.1971.
It was stipulated in the agreement that the vendor would hand over documents pertaining to the property in the suit together with vacant possession of the first floor by 30.9.71 and possession of the front portion at the time of registration of the sale deed.
If on this account it was treated as a breach it was understandable and companyld number be said to be unjustified.
30,000.
And therefore we direct that this appeal be placed before the learned C.J. for directions that it be heard by a larger Bench.
The plaintiffs were held entitled to the refund of the sum of Rs.
The Division Bench of the High Court on an elaborate companysideration of the oral and documentary evidence held that the number payment of Rs.
30, block K sanctioned place and companypletion certificate from the Municipal Corporation, Delhi in respect of the super structure built on the said plot shall be handed over along with the vacant possession of first floor by 30.9.71 and the front portion of the property by the first party to the second party at the time of registration of the sale deed.
Whether time was the essence of the companytract?
98.000 within ten days from the date of the agreement, namely, by 6.9.71, the agreement stood annulled and the sum of Rs.
463 of 1971.
The short facts leading to this appeal are as under On 26.8.71, an agreement for sale was entered into between Kamal Rani and Chand Rani.
Under the terms of the agreement, Kamal Rani agreed to sell her house and property companyprising of a freehold plot bearing No.
