Gauhati High Court
Sri Anil Brahma @ Anil Kumar Wary vs Smt. Sabita Saha And 2 Ors on 7 April, 2025
Author: Malasri Nandi
Bench: Malasri Nandi
Page No.# 1/18
GAHC010054792019
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RFA/42/2019
SRI ANIL BRAHMA @ ANIL KUMAR WARY
S/O- LATE KHERA RAM BRAHMA,
R/O- DAKHIN (SOUTH), CHAPAGURI, VILL.- DAHLAPARA, P.O. AND DIST.-
BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783380.
VERSUS
SMT. SABITA SAHA AND 2 ORS
W/O- LATE RATAN LAL SAHA,
R/O- SURYA SEN ROAD, WARD NO. 6, P.O. AND DIST.- BONGAIGAON, PIN-
783380.
2:SRI MAYA SHANKAR SAHA
S/O- LATE RATAN LAL SAHA
R/O- SURYA SEN ROAD
WARD NO. 6
P.O. AND DIST.- BONGAIGAON
PIN- 783380.
3:SMT. DIPTI SAHA
D/O- LATE RATAN LAL SAHA
R/O- SURYA SEN ROAD
WARD NO. 6
P.O. AND DIST.- BONGAIGAON
PIN- 783380
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A C SARMA, MR. B HALDAR,MR G BHARADWAJ
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M U MAHMUD, MS F N ZAMAN,MR S ISLAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
Page No.# 2/18
Date : 07-04-2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. G. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr.
M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the
learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon in T.S No.01/2016 dated 01.12.2018.
3. The predecessor in interest of the respondents brought a suit being T.S
No.01/2016 in the Court of Civil Judge, Bongaigaon, for specific performance of
contract and in the alternative refund of advance amount. The
appellant/defendant contested the suit denying various allegations made therein
and further stated that no agreement for sale was executed. The learned trial
court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. Hence, this appeal
preferred by the appellant/defendant.
4. The appellant/defendant is the owner and absolute possessor of a plot of
land measuring 6 Bighas 7 Lechas covered by Dag No.590 of periodic patta
no.280 (Old), 433 (new) and the land-in-question is situated at Village- Kharija
Dolaigaon Part I under Bongaigaon Revenue Circle in the district of Bongaigaon,
Assam. The appellant/defendant due to his financial crunch, desires to sell a
portion of aforesaid plot of land measuring 2 Bighas out of total plot of land 6
Bighas 7 Lechas.
5. On the other hand, the respondent/plaintiff was also in search of a suitable
plot of land to purchase and upon negotiation between the parties, the
appellant/defendant has agreed to sell a portion of land measuring 2 Bighas to
the respondent/plaintiff at a total consideration of 34,50,000/- (Rupees thirty
Page No.# 3/18
four lakhs fifty thousand) only at the rate of 17,25,000/- (Rupees seventeen
lakhs twenty-five thousand) only per bigha.
6. The appellant/defendant has received a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees
four lakhs fifty thousand) only from the respondent/plaintiff out of total
34,50,000/- (Rupees thirty four lakhs fifty thousand) only and executed an
agreement for sale as well as money receipt on the same day between the
parties. It was agreed that the balance consideration money i.e. Rs.30,00,00/-
(Rupees thirty lakhs only) shall have to be paid to the appellant/defendant by
the respondent/plaintiff at the time of registration of the sale deed.
7. It was further agreed that the appellant/defendant has executed the
registered sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff within 3 (three)
months from the date of execution of the agreement for sale and necessary
land sale permission and NOC for land sale shall be obtained by the
respondent/plaintiff from the competent authority upon his own expenditure.
8. However, after the lapse of 9 (nine) months, the appellant/defendant did
not come forward to sell the alleged land to the respondent/plaintiff and he
even did not provide the necessary documents like land holding certificate,
revenue payment receipt, voter card etc. to the respondent/plaintiff to enable
him to apply for land sale permission and NOC from the competent authority in
spite of several request to supply the same.
9. Under such compelling circumstance, finding no other alternative, the
respondent/plaintiff sent a legal notice to the appellant/defendant and again
requested the appellant/defendant to register the said land in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff but the defendant/appellant did not show his intention to
sell his plot of land to the respondent/plaintiff. Subsequently, the
Page No.# 4/18
respondent/plaintiff came to know from a reliable source that the
appellant/defendant tried to sell the said land with higher price violating the
terms and conditions of agreement for sale executed between the parties.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has argued that the learned
trial court erred in law in decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff
as the learned trial court misinterpreted the evidence-on-record as well as
misconstrued the exhibited documents. It is also submitted that the learned trial
court ought to dismiss the suit of the respondent/plaintiff as the
respondent/plaintiff has failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform the
contract.
11. The further submission learned counsel for the appellant/defendant is that
learned trial court is failed to understand the burden of proof as specified in
Evidence Act. The suit ought to have been dismissed as the predecessor of the
respondents failed to get the sale deed registered within 3 (three) months from
the date of the execution of the contract. Hence, the suit is liable to be
dismissed as time being the essence of contract.
In support of his submission, the learned counsel has
relied on the following case laws –
1) (2022) Live Law (SC) 712 (Smt. Katta Sujatha
Reddy and Anr. Vs. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.
and others)
2) (2024) Live Law (SC) 407 (Rajesh Kumar Vs.
Anant Kumar and others)
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has contended
that the main thrust of the respondent/plaintiff in the suit was that the
appellant/defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the
Page No.# 5/18
respondent/plaintiff on receipt of the balance consideration and to hand over
the possession of the said land. Hence, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for
enforcing his right for specific performance of the contract which he had entered
into with the appellant/defendant to purchase the said land.
13. It is also submitted that the respondent/plaintiff is still ready and willing to
perform his part of the obligation under the deal and as per the terms and
conditions agreed upon between the parties. Since the appellant/defendant was
not coming forward to execute the sale deed on the receipt of the balance
consideration as such the trial court has rightly passed judgment and order
decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.
14. Under such backdrop, there is no ground to interfere with the judgment of
the trial court and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has prayed
for dismissal of the appeal.
15. On perusal of the trial court records, it reveals that the trial court framed
7 (seven) nos. of issues wherein issue no.2 and 3 are important which are as
follows –
Issue No.2- Whether the defendant entered into an
agreement for sale of the suit land with the plaintiff at a
consideration of Rs.34,50,000/-(Rupees thirty four lakhs
fifty thousand) only on 24.03.2015 and pursuant to the
said agreement, the defendant received a sum of
Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees four lakh fifty thousand) only from
the plaintiff on 24.03.2015 as advance towards the total
consideration amount fixed.
Issue No.3- Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to
Page No.# 6/18
perform his part of the alleged contract.
16. It is pertinent to say here that the original plaintiff Ratan Lal Saha died
during the pendency of the suit before the trial court. Subsequently, his legal
heirs were substituted in T.S No.01/2016.
17. Before further proceed with the case, it is apt to discuss about the
evidence of the witnesses recorded by the trial court.
18. PW-1, the original plaintiff has reiterated the same thing whatever he
stated in his plaint that on negotiation between the parties i.e. the plaintiff and
the defendant, the appellant/defendant has agreed to sell a portion of his land
measuring 2 Bigha to the respondent/plaintiff at a total consideration of
Rs.34,50,000/- (Rupees thirty four lakhs fifty thousand) only. Accordingly, the
respondent/plaintiff paid a sum Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty
thousand) only to the appellant/defendant on 24.03.2015 out of total amount of
34,50,000/- (Rupees thirty four lakhs fifty thousand) only and accordingly
executed an agreement for sale as well as money receipt on the same day vide
Ext.1 and Ext.2 respectively. Thereafter, the appellant/defendant did not hand
over the possession of the said land in spite of repeated request by the
respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant to execute the sale deed on
receipt of balance consideration. As the appellant/defendant failed to do so, the
respondent/plaintiff was compelled to file the title suit being no. T.S 01/2016.
19. In his cross-examination, PW-1 replied that he verbally requested the
appellant/defendant to hand over the relevant documents to apply for sale
permission but he did not issue any notice to the appellant/defendant to hand
over such documents. But the appellant/defendant did not respond to such
verbal request as such he failed to collect the sale permission for the schedule
Page No.# 7/18
plot of land. It was suggested that the appellant/defendant put his signature in
a blank paper to prepare a mortgage deed but the respondent/plaintiff
converted the said document for agreement for sale.
20. PW-2 deposed in his evidence that the agreement for sale was prepared
in his house between the respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/defendant. The
respondent/plaintiff paid Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand) only
to the appellant/defendant in his presence but he did not put his signature in
Ext.1, though he was present at the relevant time.
21. PW-3 is the witness to the agreement for sale. According to him, an
agreement for sale was executed between the respondent/plaintiff and the
appellant/defendant to purchase a plot of land measuring 2 Bigha by the
respondent/plaintiff from the appellant/defendant with a consideration of
Rs.17,25,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs twenty five thousand) only per bigha.
Accordingly on 24.03.2015, an agreement for sale was executed between them
vide Ext.1 wherein he put his signature as witness. On the same day, the
respondent/plaintiff paid Rs.4,50,000 (Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand) only to
the appellant/defendant vide money receipt Ext.2 wherein he put his signature
vide Ext.2(2).
22. PW-4 has also deposed in his evidence that he knew both the
respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/defendant. The defendant agreed to sell
a plot of land measuring 2 Bighas to the plaintiff. On 24.03.2015, an agreement
for sale was executed between the parties wherein the amount of consideration
was fixed at Rs.17,25,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs twenty five thousand) only
per bigha. In pursuant to the said agreement, the plaintiff paid Rs.4,50,000/-
(Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand) only to the appellant/defendant as advance
in his presence. He put his signature in Ext.1 wherein Ext.1(8) is his signature.
Page No.# 8/18
In Ext.2 money receipt wherein he also put his signature vide Ext.2(3).
23. The defendant/appellant was examined himself as DW-1 before the trial
court. In his deposition in one hand he stated that the alleged agreement for
sale dated 24.03.2015 was not a registered deed as per provisions of
Registration Act, 1908 and as such the alleged agreement for sale has no legal
value in the eye of law. It is further submitted that he is the owner and absolute
possessor of a total plot of land measuring 6 Bighas 7 Lechas covered by Dag
No.590 of periodic patta no.280 (Old), 433 (new) and the land-in-question is
situated at Village- Kharija Dolaigaon Part I under Bongaigaon Revenue Circle in
the district of Bongaigaon, Assam and he never desired to sell the said plot of
land for his financial hardship.
24. It is further submitted that he approached the respondent/plaintiff for
financial help of an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand)
only and the plaintiff was agreed to extend the said amount by keeping his plot
of land mortgaged which is the suit land. He received the amount of
Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand) only on 24.03.2015 and
afterwards the respondent/plaintiff has received back Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty
thousand) only as interest from him. He told the respondent/plaintiff to refund
the said amount within 8/9 months to release the said mortgage property i.e.
the suit land.
25. It was further alleged that the respondent/plaintiff had requested the
defendant to sign some blank papers required for the purpose of preparing the
mortgage deed. So, due to paucity of time and urgency of money as well as on
good faith, the appellant/defendant signed some blank papers only to prepare
the mortgage deed in respect of the suit land and the respondent/plaintiff gave
assurance that after preparing the mortgage deed, he would provide the
Page No.# 9/18
photocopy of the same to him but the respondent/plaintiff did not provide the
said copy of the mortgage deed rather the respondent/plaintiff converted the
said blank signed papers to agreement for sale and money receipt to grab the
suit land in illegal manner.
26. Though DW-1 alleged that the respondent/plaintiff converted some blank
signed papers to agreement for sale but in his cross-examination DW-1 admitted
his signature in Ext.1 vide Ext.1(1), Ext.1(2) and Ext.1(3). DW-1 also admitted
that Dhaneswar Saharia, Dinabandhu Roy and Moti Lal Roy put their signatures
on 24.03.2015 in his presence. DW-1 further admitted that in Ext.2 money
receipt, he put his signature over the revenue stamp on receipt of Rs.4,50,000/-
(Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand) only. The DW-1 in his cross-examination
finally admitted that the respondent/plaintiff did not pay Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees
four lakhs fifty thousand) only to him as loan but he took the said money for
consideration to sell a plot of land to the respondent/plaintiff.
27. Apparently, there is no dispute that the agreement for sale bears the
signatures of the plaintiff/respondent as well as the defendant/appellant. So far
as therefore execution is concerned, it is not denied that the agreement to sale
was indeed executed. It is categorically stated in Ext.1 agreement for sale that
the responsibility for taking the necessary clearances and permission for sale
from all the authorities would be upon the plaintiff in the suit. As per terms and
conditions of Ext.1 vide para 4, the NOC and land sale permission of the said
plot of land from the concerned authority shall be obtained by the second party
i.e. the plaintiff/respondent at his own expenses and as per para 5, the first
party i.e. appellant/defendant shall execute the registered sale deed in favour of
the second party within 3 (three) months from the date of execution of the
agreement for sale dated 24.03.2015.
Page No.# 10/18
28. The discussion on these issues will also encompass the issue as to
whether it is the defendant who is guilty of breach of contract or the
respondent/plaintiff is to be held to be guilty of breach of contract being the
agreement for sale dated 24.03.2015. Since there is no separate issue which
was framed by the parties as to who was guilty of breach of contract, it is
therefore taken up at this juncture as to who was guilty of breach of contract.
Now the question comes whether plaintiff had always been ready and willing to
perform his part for agreement to sale to pay the balance consideration to the
appellant/defendant.
29. It appears from the plaint as well as the evidence of the
respondent/plaintiff that after lapse of 9 (nine) months as the
appellant/defendant did not come forward to sale the schedule plot of land to
the respondent/plaintiff and he even did not provide the necessary documents
like land holding certificate, revenue payment receipt, voter card etc. to the
respondent/plaintiff to apply for land sale permission and NOC from the
competent authorities in spite of several request to supply the same to the
respondent/plaintiff.
30. It also appears that between the said period, the respondent/plaintiff also
requested the appellant/defendant to register the suit land in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff on receipt of the balance consideration but the defendant
did not pay any heed to his request. So finding no alternative the
respondent/plaintiff sent a legal notice vide Ext.3 to the appellant/defendant
through his counsel on 08.12.2015 requesting the appellant/defendant to
register the said land in favour of the respondent/plaintiff but the
appellant/defendant did not show his intention to sale the plot of land to the
plaintiff. The appellant/defendant also admitted the fact that he received the
Page No.# 11/18
legal notice dated 08.12.2015 from the respondent/plaintiff. But the
respondent/plaintiff did not wait for the period of 1 (one) month and before
elapsing the period filed the instant suit. As such, the appellant/defendant is not
bound to the terms and conditions mentioned in the alleged agreement dated
24.03.2015.
31. As per Ext.3 – legal notice dated 08.12.2015, 1 (one) month was granted
to the appellant/defendant to get the said land registered in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff. Though the appellant/defendant stated in his evidence that
he received the legal notice dated 08.12.2015 but he is totally silent when he
received the said notice.
32. As the defendant admitted that he received the notice dated 08.12.2015
and admission of his signature in Ext.1 and Ext.2, apparently, the
appellant/defendant has to be held guilty of breach of contract as he failed to
get the land registered in favour of the respondent/plaintiff within the stipulated
time as per Ext.1.
33. The next issue which arises is that even if the appellant/defendant has to
be held guilty of the breach of contract being the agreement for sale dated
24.03.2015, now the question comes whether the plaintiff has proved that he
always was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement for sale
which is required by Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
34. Let us now examine as to whether plaintiff has led evidence and proved
in this suit that the plaintiff has always been and continues to be ready and
willing to perform his part of the contract.
35. In my opinion, the expression “has always been and continued to be
ready and willing to perform the contract” includes that plaintiff must show that
Page No.# 12/18
he always had the financial capacity to perform his part of the contract for
making payment of balance sale consideration amounting to Rs.30,00,00/-
(Rupees thirty lakhs) only. No doubt financial capacity which is to be proved
under the term readiness and willingness is not that the plaintiff has to show
that he had with him liquid moneys, but however it is equally necessary for the
plaintiff to show his financial capacity, and having much assets, for being able to
pay the balance sale consideration.
36. When we examine the facts of the present case, it is found that the
plaintiff in order to prove readiness and willingness has relied upon the evidence
of the witnesses vide PW-2, PW-3 and PW- 4. According to the
plaintiff/respondent, he several times approached to the appellant/defendant to
furnish the necessary documents to obtain sale permission, NOC etc from the
concerned authorities. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 categorically stated that they
accompanied the petitioner to the house of the appellant/defendant for
collection of such documents but the appellant did not provide such relevant
documents to the plaintiff/respondent for which he was unable to collect the
sale permission, NOC etc. However, the plaintiff/respondent did not produce any
documents like bank accounts, share certificate or such other items to prove
that he has financially ability, having much assets for being able to pay the
balance sale consideration.
37. I am not agree with the argument urged on behalf of the
plaintiff/respondent that plaintiff/respondent had proved its readiness and
willingness as required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. As already
observed above, readiness and willingness has to be a continuous act from the
date of entering into the agreement to sell till at least leading of evidence by the
Page No.# 13/18
plaintiff in the suit, if not even as on date at the stage of final arguments. In
this regard, it is seen that the plaintiff/respondent did not produce any
document showing his financial capability and which documents are in the
special knowledge of the plaintiff and therefore required to be proved by the
plaintiff in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. These documents in
possession of the plaintiff with respect to its financial capacity would be the
documents of the bank accounts of the plaintiff, any fixed deposit receipts,
audited Balance Sheets and Profit and Loss accounts of the plaintiff etc. since
the date of execution of the agreement for sale dated 24.03.2015.
38. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act deliberately requires continuous
readiness and willingness i.e. continuous financial ability to complete the
transactions. The stage of complying with obligations under the agreement to
sell by a proposed buyer even if does not arise, yet Section 16(c) of the Specific
Relief Act requires the plaintiff to show continuous financial capacity to pay the
balance sale consideration. In my opinion, in the instant case, the
plaintiff/respondent in this regard has miserably failed because merely by saying
financial capacity to pay the balance consideration does not mean that the
plaintiff/respondent had financial capacity. As already stated above, the
plaintiff/respondent did not produce any document regarding his financial
capacity like Bank accounts or cash certificates etc. and therefore, against the
plaintiff/respondent, adverse inference can be drawn under Section 114 of the
Indian Evidence Act that the plaintiff/respondent deliberately had not filed such
documents. It is, therefore, held that the plaintiff/respondent has failed to
comply with Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act.
39. In the case of Baldev Behl & Ors. Vs. Bhule & Ors. (2012) 132 DRJ 247 , it
Page No.# 14/18
was held as under –
“26(i). This issue pertains to plaintiff No.1 being
ready and willing to perform his part of the
agreement to sell. As per Section 16(c) of the Act,
every plaintiff in a suit for specific performance
must aver and prove that the plaintiff has always
been and continues to be ready and willing to
perform his part of the contract/agreement to sell.
Readiness is financial capacity to go ahead with the
agreement to sell and willingness is the intention. I
may, at this stage, specifically invite attention to
the observations of the Supreme Court in the case
of Balraj Taneja and Anr. (supra), and relevant
paras have been reproduced above, and which
show that in a suit for specific performance even if
there is no defence of the defendant, yet, the
aspect of readiness and willingness has to be
specifically proved by the plaintiff. This is stated by
the Supreme Court in para 30 of the said judgment.
The question is whether the plaintiff No.1 has
proved his readiness and willingness at the relevant
time and also continues to be ready and willing
to perform his part of the contract/agreement to
sell.
Page No.# 15/18
(ii) Readiness to perform the obligations by a
proposed purchaser is a very important aspect and
it has to be proved by categorical evidence.
Mere oral evidence and self-serving depositions
cannot be a substitute for categorical evidence on
the specific statutory requirement of Section 16(c).
It is not disputed on behalf of the plaintiff No.1 that
plaintiff No.1 has not filed any income tax returns
or any bank account or proof of any other
assets/properties or any other evidence to show
the financial capacity of the plaintiff No.1 to pay the
balance sale consideration. As per the case of the
plaintiff No.1, the balance sale consideration would
be approximately 19.5 lacs and there is no evidence
worth the name in the record to show the plaintiff
No.1’s financial capacity for this amount. Of course,
while on this argument, I am assuming that there is
a certainty as to consideration because in reality
there is no certainty as to balance sale
consideration in as much as the plaintiff No.1 has
failed to exercise the option in terms of the
agreement to sell as to which area of the balance
land less the hutment/portion the plaintiff No.1
seeks specific performance of. Also, as already
stated above, this area claimed by the plaintiff No.1
has to be further conditioned by an area of 12
Page No.# 16/18bighas which has already been sold to the
defendant No.3 under the sale deed dated
8.4.1988. In any case, I need not state anything
further in as much as there is not a single piece of
paper on record or any credible evidence which
proves the financial capacity of the plaintiff No.1. I
accordingly hold that plaintiff No.1 has miserably
failed to prove his readiness to perform his
obligations under the agreement to sell dated
27.8.1988. In fact, even willingness on the part of
the plaintiff No.1 is absent in as much as there is
no certainty of any option exercised by the plaintiff
No.1 as to specific area which the plaintiff No.1
seeks to purchase, and which specific area had
necessarily to be clear in as much as there is the
issue of lessening the area whether on account of
hutments or on account of 12 bighas of land
already purchased by the defendant No.3 vide sale
deed dated 8.4.1988 and hence of clarity as to for
what area and for what price the agreement to sell
has to go ahead.”
40. Reverting to the case in hand, admittedly the plaintiff has not produced
any documents showing his financial capability to prove his readiness and
willingness to pay the balance consideration. It is, therefore, held that plaintiff
has failed to show that he had always been and continued to be always ready
and willing to perform his part of agreement to sell by having the necessary
Page No.# 17/18
financial capacity to pay the balance sale consideration amounting to
Rs.30,00,00/- (Rupees thirty lakhs) only.
41. Now the question comes whether the plaintiff/respondent is entitled to
refund of any amount from the defendant/appellant !
42. As already discussed above, the defendant/appellant received an amount
of Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand) only under the agreement
for sale out of final consideration amounting to Rs.34,50,000/-(Rupees thirty
four lakhs fifty thousand) only.
43. As per terms and conditions of the agreement for sale, the
defendant/appellant shall execute the registered sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff/respondent within 3 (three) months from the date of execution of the
agreement for sale dated 24.03.2015. But the defendant/appellant has failed to
do so in spite of repeated requests from the side of the plaintiff. The
defendant/appellant since is held guilty of breach of contract and even if it was
plaintiff who was held guilty of breach of contract but since defendant/appellant
has not proved any loss caused to him on account of any alleged breach of
contract by the plaintiff.
44. In view of the ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Fateh Chand Vs. Balkishan Das, AIR 1963 SC 1405, it is held that
plaintiff/respondent is entitled to refund of Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees four lakhs fifty
thousand) only from the defendant/appellant. Accordingly, the suit will stand
decreed for the monetary amount of Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees four lakhs fifty
thousand) only in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and against the
defendant/appellant.
45. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the suit of the plaintiff seeking
Page No.# 18/18
specific performance as against the defendant is dismissed and the appeal is
allowed. However, in favour of the plaintiff, a money decree is passed for a sum
of Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand) only against the
defendant/appellant.
46. Parties are left to bear their own cost. Decree be prepared accordingly.
47. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
48. Transmit the trial court records.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
[ad_1]
Source link