Although the companysideration mentioned in the sale deed was stated to be Rs.25,000/ , as a matter of fact only a sum of Rs.10,000/ was paid by the defendant as companysideration which has been clearly accepted and acknowledged by the defendant in the agreement of reconveyance which he later executed in favour of Mainabai and the plaintiffs on the same day.
1 kept quiet almost for 18 years after attaining majority and plaintiff No.
The trial companyrt recorded the finding that the sale deed was for Rs.25,000/ and number Rs.10,000/ that there was an agreement of reconveyance between the parties but for a total companysideration of Rs.25,000/ that the agreement dated 21.7.1952, number the one dated 19.7.1952, was enforceable that the plaintiffs had paid Rs.5,000/ to late Manaklal and they had always been and were still willing to perform their part of the companytract that the suit was within limitation and that the plaintiffs were entitled to get the deed of reconveyance executed from the legal representatives of late Manaklal on payment of balance amount of Rs.20,000/ .
1 in the suit were directed to pay back to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.5,000/ with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.
By this agreement, the defendant agreed to reconvey the house to Mainabai and the plaintiffs after receiving from them the sum of Rs.10,000/ and interest on this amount.
P/2 was entered into between the parties on 21.7.1952, i.e., two days after execution of the agreement Ex.
Both parties aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree of the trial companyrt filed first appeals before the High Court.
Accordingly, the suit for specific performance was valued at the total amount of Rs.16,980/ for the purposes of companyrt fee and jurisdiction.
2 to 14.
Then in paragraph 12 of the plaint, it was averred that the plaintiffs have been and are ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract according to its true companystruction.
Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 hereinafter referred to as the Act companyresponds with Section 24 of the old Act of 1877 which lays down that the person seeking specific performance of the companytract, must file a suit wherein he must allege and prove that he has performed or has been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the companytract, which are to be performed by him.
It will be open to Mainabai and the plaintiffs to pay to the defendant No.
On 7.5.1973, the plaintiffs had approached the defendant personally and requested him to take the balance price of Rs.5,000/ together with interest of Rs.10,000/ by kat miti and after adjusting towards it the net rental income realized by him to be ascertained after an account, to reconvey the house to the plaintiffs and defendants Nos.
1 shall realize by way of rent of the house in question shall after deducting from it the amount spent by him on house tax, water tax, tokhat tax, electric charges and expenditure on repairs, be either paid to him to Mainabai and the plaintiffs or credit for it shall be given to them towards the amount payable by them for the reconveyance.
1 assailed the entire judgment and decree companytending that the trial companyrt erred in holding that execution of the two agreements Ex.
P/2 was duly proved that the two documents were number only companytradictory and inconsistent but also suspicious.
Plaintiff No.
P/1 became number existent and neither of the parties was obliged to perform the same.
2 to 14 were entitled to require the defendant No.
On these findings, the plaintiffs claim for specific performance was decreed with direction to the plaintiffs to pay or deposit the balance companysideration amount of Rs.20,000/ .
2 to 14 by a registered sale deed to be executed by him in companysideration of Rs.11,930/ and to deliver possession of the same to them.
P/1 and Ex.
It was observed by the High Court that although it was the case of the plaintiffs that the subsequent agreement Ex.
1 in the suit hereinafter referred to as the defendant for the sake of companyvenience was dismissed by the High Court.
In the plaint, it was pleaded by the plaintiffs that they being in need of funds required for discharging the business debts of the joint family of the plaintiffs, their grandmother Mainabai, for herself and as their guardian entered into an agreement with the defendant, according to which a sale deed of the suit house was executed by her on behalf of herself and as guardian of the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant and the defendant was to execute an agreement of reconveyance on certain terms and companyditions in favour of said Mainabai and the plaintiffs.
1 such sums as they may like from time to time towards the price of reconveyance and the same shall be accepted and accounted for by the defendant No.
As per the plaint, the cause of action accrued on service of numberice on 9.5.1973 when the defendant failed to companyply with the plaintiffs numberice dated 7.5.1973.
2 to 14 by executing a registered sale deed of the house in their favour at their own companyt.
They also denied the terms set out in the agreement.
Mainabai died on 1.3.1964 and her legal representatives, besides the plaintiffs, were joined as proforma defendants Nos.
The High Court further companysidered whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract as per the agreement Ex.
It was denied in the written statement that the sale deed dated 19.5.1952 was for companysideration of Rs.10,000/ only and number for Rs.25,000/ .
The parents of the plaintiffs as also their grandfather late Ramnarayan Bhutda, husband of late Mainabai had died much before the execution of the transaction in dispute.
It was asserted that the plaintiffs were liable only to pay Rs.10,000/ as companysideration amount to get the deed of reconveyance from the legal representatives of late Manaklal, whereas the legal representatives of late Manaklal deceased defendant No.
However, the legal representatives of late Manaklal original defendant No.
It was further pleaded by the plaintiffs that all essential terms of reconveyance number having been fully and properly stated in the aforesaid agreement which was executed by the defendant on 19.7.1952, certain terms and companyditions were numberified by a further agreement which the defendant executed in favour of the plaintiffs and their grandmother Mainabai on 21.7.1952.
P/2 and the plaintiffs readiness and willingness was only to make the payment as per the agreement Ex.
He was further entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs.5,000/ less the net rental income of the house received by him which was to be ascertained after taking an account.
The High Court has held that the plaintiffs have failed to make averment and lead evidence to prove their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the companytract according to its true companystruction, i.e., in accordance with the terms and companyditions of the agreement dated 21.7.1952.
He had already been paid Rs.1,000/ on 13.10.1953 and Rs.4,000/ on 1.2.1955.
The defendant had died even before filing of the written statement which was then filed by his legal representatives.
On 19.7.1952, when the plaintiffs were minors, their late grandmother Mainabai purporting to act for herself and as guardian of the plaintiffs executed a registered sale deed vide Exhibit D/1for companysideration which was stated to be Rs.25,000/ in the sale deed and delivered possession to the defendant vendee.
For such reconveyance, Mainabai and the two plaintiffs will be liable to pay the defendant No.1 the real and original amount which the later had paid to them for the initial sale of the house, together with interest on it 6 per annum from the date of the original sale to the date of reconveyance.
Agreement of reconveyance by Manaklal either on 19.7.1952 or 21.7.1952 was denied.
On remand, the High Court found that as per plaintiffs own showing a subsequent agreement Ex.
The amount of interest by kat miti on Rs.10,000/ companyes to Rs.6,930/ .
P/1 dated 19.7.1952.
P/2 would show that it was wholly an independent document making absolutely numberreference of Ex.
However, in letters patent appeals, the judgment dated 10.4.1995 was set aside and the cases were remanded back to the learned Single Judge for rehearing and deciding the matter afresh.
P/2 was executed by way of modification clarification of the agreement Ex.
For determining the precise balance of the companysideration payable to the defendant according to the agreement of reconveyance he was to give an account of all sums companylected by him as rent of the house and also of all sums spent by him on account of taxes, repairs or any other charges and after deducting the amounts spent by him from the payable amount realized as rent, to adjust the sum towards the balance amount of Rs.5,000/ and interest which was to be paid to him.
1 may be directed to reconvey the suit house to the plaintiffs and defendants Nos.
Both appeals one filed by the plaintiffs and the other by legal representatives of late Manaklal were dismissed by the High Court on 10.4.1995.
The grievance of the plaintiffs was that the trial companyrt companymitted an error in holding that the sale deed dated 19.7.1952 was for a total sum of Rs.25,000/ and that said amount was fixed as companysideration for executing the deed of reconveyance.
The facts necessary are that the suit property was a joint family property of the plaintiffs, namely, Bal Krishna and Ramanlal, both brothers and their late grandmother Mainabai.
P/1 dated 19.7.1952 and number agreement Ex.
So even if the agreement Ex.
The High Court has further held that although the sale deed was dated 19.7.1952 and the agreement to reconveyance was dated 21.7.1952 the only step taken by the plaintiffs was to pay back the amount of Rs.1,000/ on 13.10.1953 and amount of Rs.4,000/ on 1.2.1955 and thereafter till the service of numberice dated 7.5.1973 and 10.5.1973 when the suit was filed, numbersteps were taken by the plaintiffs on their part to show their readiness or willingness to perform their part of the companytract.
1 to reconvey the suit house to them by a registered deed after receiving from them the amount of companysideration payable to him as per that agreement.
The terms and companyditions for reconveyance as agreed and stated in this document were as follows The defendant No.1 will reconvey the house to Mainabai and the two plaintiffs whenever they shall call upon him to do so by a numberice in writing.
For the purposes of companyrt fee and jurisdiction, the suit for specific performance was valued according to the companysideration for the reconveyance on it by kat miti from 19.7.1952 to the date when the defendant failed to perform the companytract in spite of numberice taking into account the two payments of Rs.1,000/ and Rs.4,000/ already made to the defendant.
P/1 was executed between the parties, the same stood substituted by a new agreement Ex.
Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiffs have companye up before this Court by filing a special leave petition which has been companyverted into the present appeal.
As per the plaint, according to the agreement of reconveyance, the plaintiffs and defendants Nos.
P/2 was number seriously companytested by the companynsel for the defendants and the High Court companycurred with the finding of the trial companyrt that the factum of execution of agreement Ex.
P/1, but a bare reading of the agreement Ex.
1 when accounts shall be taken and interest shall be calculated by kat miti.
P/2 dated 21.7.1952 was duly established.
It was submitted that the signature of Manaklal was obtained by the plaintiffs on some papers in companynection with a suit filed against late Ramanandji, father of the plaintiffs and it appeared to them that false agreement and receipts had been prepared by the plaintiffs using those signed papers.
The amount which the defendant No.
The demand either oral or by any letter by the plaintiffs from late Manaklal for execution of the sale deed was denied.
2 for 7 years, which is indicative of callous indifference and wilful negligence on the part of the plaintiffs and, therefore, they were held number entitled for equitable relief of specific performance of the companytract in their favour and companysequently the decree for specific performance passed by the trial companyrt was set aside and plaintiffs suit was dismissed.
P/2 and the agreement Ex.
The execution of the agreement Ex.
It was further pleaded in the plaint that towards the said agreement of reconveyance, the plaintiffs had paid to the defendant Rs.1,000/ on 13.10.1953 and Rs.4,000/ on 1.2.1955 and the defendant has executed in their favour two receipts on 13.10.1953 and 1.2.1955 respectively.
The plaintiffs, inter alia, made a prayer that defendant No.
Accordingly, Mainabai purporting to act on her own behalf and also as guardian of the plaintiffs, who were both minors at that time, executed a registered sale deed of the house on 19.7.1952 in favour of the defendant for companysideration which was stated in the deed to be a sum of Rs.25,000/ and delivered possession of the house to him except one room and one gachhi which is still in possession of the plaintiffs.
It was submitted that as per the plaintiffs own showing it was clear that they were never ready or willing to pay the entire companysideration for reconveyance as stipulated in the agreement Ex.
The finding that a sum of Rs.5,000/ was paid to late Manaklal and plaintiffs willingness to perform their part of the companytract were also challenged.
P/2 dated 21.7.1952.
No amount on account of electric charges or water charges shall be deducted by the defendant No.1 from the rent companylected by him in case he was number required to pay the same and it was companylected by him from the tenants.
1 and 2 herein original defendant No.
P. NAOLEKAR, J. By this appeal, the appellants plaintiffs in the suit hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs for the sake of companyvenience have challenged the judgment and order of the High Court dated 7.5.2002 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs on 10.5.1973 for specific performance of the companytract to reconvey the suit property by Manaklal, the predecessor in interest of respondents Nos.
