HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
R. P. Mookerjee, Renupada Mukherjee
PRASANTA KUMAR SUR - Appellant
Versus
INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTORS LTD. - Respondent
A. F. O. D. 127 Of 1950
Decided On : MAY 26, 1954
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - CONTRACT FOR SALE OF PROPERTY - REPUDIATION OF CONTRACT BY DEFENDANT - TENDER OF CONSIDERATION - NECESSITY - TIME BEING THE ESSENCE OF THE CONTRACT - INTERPRETATION OF CLAUSE 3 AND 4 OF THE AGREEMENT - EFFECT OF REPUDIATION ON PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO SUE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant company for the sale of a property for Rs. 10,001/-. The agreement stipulated that the purchase was to be completed within two years from the date of the agreement, time being the essence of the contract. The plaintiff intimated his readiness to complete the purchase within the stipulated period, but the defendant repudiated the contract. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the agreement was genuine and valid, and that the defendant had repudiated the contract. The court also found that the plaintiff had intimated his readiness to complete the purchase within the stipulated period, and that the defendant had refused to accept the same.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was required to tender the consideration amount before filing a suit for specific performance, despite the defendant's repudiation of the contract? 2. Whether the plaintiff's claim for specific performance was barred by the expiry of the two-year period stipulated in the agreement?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff was not required to tender the consideration amount before filing a suit for specific performance, as the defendant had repudiated the contract and such a tender would have been a useless formality. 2. The court held that the plaintiff's claim for specific performance was not barred by the expiry of the two-year period stipulated in the agreement, as the defendant's repudiation of the contract had prevented the plaintiff from completing the purchase within the stipulated period.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiff's appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower court, and directed the defendant company to execute and register the conveyance of the property in favor of the plaintiff upon deposit of Rs. 10,001/- by the plaintiff within two months.
( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal which arises out of a suit brought by him for specific performance of a contract for the sale of the property in suit. The relevant facts are almost all admitted ones.
( 2 ) PREMISES No. 83, Bagmari Road in the eastern suburbs of Calcutta originally belonged to the plaintiff and his co-sharers. The northern portion of the said premises came to be possessed by the plaintiff alone. On or about 4-2-1941 the plaintiff executed in favour of the defendant company, a conveyance in respect of the separated northern portion of the said premises for and consideration of Rs. 10,000/ -.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff's case is that he was in urgent need of Rs. 10,000/ -. He had proposed to the defendant Company for an advance of Rs. 10,000/- on the security of the said property. The defendant refused to accept the property on mortgage but was agreeable to pay Rs. 10,000/-on the plaintiff executing a conveyance in respect of the said property. The defendant also agreed to execute an agreement for re-sale simultaneously with the execution of the conveyance for a consideration of Rs. 10,001/- on condition that the said consideration was paid and the transfer obtained within two years of the execution of the agreement. The plaintiff executed the conveyance on 4-2-1941. On 10-2-1941 such an agreement also was signed. On 26-11-1942 i. e. within twenty-two months of the date of the agreement the plaintiff offered to the defendant company to complete the purchase and sent a draft conveyance for approval. Certain letters were exchanged between the parties thereafter and ultimately on 18-12-1942 the defendant refused to complete the transaction on the allegation that there had been no concluded or valid agreement of sale as alleged. Pour months alter the expiry of the period of two years from the date of the agreement the present suit was filed on 10-6-1943. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to specific performance of the, contract for sale on payment of Rs. 10,001/- at the cost of the plaintiff. There was an alternative prayer for a decree for redemption on the footing that the transaction was in reality a mortgage and for consequential reliefs.
( 4 ) THE defence as originally filed was on the footing that the alleged contract was not a genuine one. Even if it were found to be genuine the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief as he had not tendered the amount of consideration. The plaintiff was also alleged not to be in a position to make the payment at the relevant time and he could never have been ready and willing to perform the contract. The alternative claim for redemption was also resisted.
( 5 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge on the evidence came to the conclusion that the story as set up by the plaintiff that the original proposal by the plaintiff to the defendant was for a loan on a mortgage of the premises in question, which had been denied by the defendant, was true. Though the transaction was in fact intended to be a mortgage by conditional sale, in view of Section 53 (c), Transfer of Property Act, as amended by Act 20 of 1929, the transaction could not be treated as a mortgage by conditional sale. The conditions of re-sale had not been embodied in the conveyance Ex. C. Had the case not been governed by the proviso to Section 58 (c), Transfer of Property Act the transaction would have been held to be a mortgage by conditional sale. The then market value of the property was found to be much higher than Rs. 10,000/- which had been stated to be the consideration for the conveyance.
( 6 ) THE agreement Ex. 1 was found to be a genuine and valid document. The Court further came to the conclusion that the contract could be enforced specifically unless there was some other legal bar. The learned Subordinate Judge thereafter found that the plaintiff not having tendered the full amount as mentioned in the agreement he was not entitled to pray for specific performance of the contract. T
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.