JUDGMENT

V. RAMASWAMI, J.:—The respondent-Commissioner Sanchaita Investments in exercise of the powers vested in him under orders of this Court attached the entire first floor of premises No. 158, Dharamtolla Street, Calcutta along with all appurtenants attached thereto under an order of attachment dated 14th April, 1987. The appellant who claimed to be the owner of the property in possession filed an objection against attachment on 24th April, 1987 before the respondent. The objection petition was forwarded by the respondent to the High Court for adjudication.

2. The appellant-Kali Durga Estate is a partnership firm of which Mr. Manicklal Mukherjee who is representing the same in this appeal is a partner. There is no dispute that the property in dispute belonged to this partnership firm. The case of the appellant was that though under a registered agreement dated 21st June, 1980 the appellant agreed to sell the property to Sanchaita Investments which was a partnership firm having its office at 5-6, Fancy Lane, Calcutta, the same was later on cancelled and the agreement itself has become unenforceable. The respondent-Commissioner has been appointed under the order of this Court as Commissioner in respect of all Sanchaita Investments matters by various orders of this Court and it is in exercise of those powers the Commissioner attached the property now in dispute. The objection to the attachment was heard by a Division Bench of the Calcutta-High Court which by its order dated 7-11-1990, dismissed the appellants plea for raising the attachment, holding that the claim of the appellant that their agreement had been cancelled and no right had accrued to Sanchaita Investments cannot be accepted. The learned Judges further directed the Commissioner to take steps to put up the property for sale by public auction.

3. It is seen from the registered agreement to sell executed by the appellant in favour of Sanchaita Investments that the appellant agreed to sell the property for a sum of Rs. 16 lacs. On the date of the agreement itself a sum of Rs. 4 lacs was paid by the Sanchaita Investments as earnest money and it is not in dispute. Subsequently on various dates the purchaser had paid a further sum of Rs. 9 lacs before 21st October, 1980 as provided in the agreement. The balance of consideration was to be paid at the time when the vendor could deliver possession of the entire first floor premises. It appears from the agreement itself that the purchaser had inspected the original documents of title and satisfied themselves as to the title of the vendor (appellant). As and when the vendor was in a position to deliver possession, the balance of consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- was agreed to be paid and the sale completed. The agreement further provided that the buyer shall pay the balance and take possession of the entire first floor within 15 days of receipt of the notice received from the vendor that the premises is ready for delivery of possession.

4. The agreement further provided that if the buyer failed to pay within 15 days of service of the notice as stated above the sellers shall have a right to refund to the buyer all the payments received except a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, and cancel the agreement and forfeit the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of liquidated damages and the buyer shall have no claim over the sellers or in respect of the property. By notice dated 13-11-1980 the appellants informed Sanchaita Investments that the first floor of the premises which they have agreed to sell is ready for delivery of possession and that the buyer can take possession of the same on or before 30th November, 1980 on their payment of the full consideration. It is the case of the appellants that the said Sanchaita Investments failed and neglected to pay the balance amount and take possession of the same before 30th November, 1980 and accordingly the agreement to sell had become unenforceable and void and it was also cancelled. In order to avoid any clo