Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Salil Kumar Datta
KARTIK CHANDRA BERA - Appellant
Versus
BHUSAN CHANDRA GURIA - Respondent
C. R. 4246 Of 1973
Decided On : 09/10/1976
COMPROMISE - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - TIME AS ESSENCE OF CONTRACT - COURT'S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF AGAINST FORFEITURE - SECTION 55 OF THE CONTRACT ACT - INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 - ORDER 9, RULE 13 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant. The parties entered into a compromise agreement, which was made a part of the decree. The compromise agreement provided that the plaintiff would execute a kobala for a certain amount of land in favor of the defendant and pay him a certain sum of money within a specified time. If the plaintiff failed to do so, the suit would be dismissed. The plaintiff failed to perform his obligations within the specified time, and the suit was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that time was the essence of the compromise agreement and that the plaintiff's failure to perform his obligations within the specified time barred him from seeking specific performance of the agreement. The court also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief against forfeiture under Section 55 of the Contract Act, as the defendant had not accepted the delayed performance of the agreement.
Issues: 1. Whether time was the essence of the compromise agreement? 2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the agreement despite his failure to perform his obligations within the specified time? 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to relief against forfeiture under Section 55 of the Contract Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that time was the essence of the compromise agreement based on the express provision of the agreement which was a material condition thereof. 2. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance of the agreement despite his failure to perform his obligations within the specified time, as time was the essence of the contract. 3. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief against forfeiture under Section 55 of the Contract Act, as the defendant had not accepted the delayed performance of the agreement.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
( 1 ) THIS Rule was issued at the instance of the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 357 of 1967 in the Court of 1st Mun-sif, Tamluk against the order No. 47 dated Sep. 21, 1973, whereby the suit was dismissed after contest in terms of Sole-nama which was made a part of the decree. The relevant facts are as follows : The plaintiff filed the above Title Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property on eviction therefrom of the defendant the opposite party No. 1 and the State of West Bengal. It was stated that the opposite party No. 1 was allowed to live in the suit property as the licensee and as he failed to vacate on demand the suit was instituted for recovery of possession on declaration of title. The opposite party No. 1 filed a written statement stating that he was a tenant under the plaintiff's father since 1347 B. S. and his right was also perfected by adverse possession and his name was duly entered in the record of rights as a raiyat under the State. A written statement was also filed on behalf of the State of West Bengal stating that the opposite party No. 1 was a tenant under the State. The suit became ready for hearing on April 16, 1969 when both the parties namely the petitioner and the opposite party No. 1 submitted that they would file a petition of compromise. Thereafter on April 17, 1969 both parties filed a petition of compromise. The terms of Solenama in English rendering are as follows :--"1. We the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 on the advice of our well-wishers and considering all circumstances have decided to settle the suit amicably on compromise on the following terms.
( 2 ) WE the plaintiff and the opposite party No. 1 hereby mutually admit and egree that (i) each term of solenama is consideration of the other, (ii) in this compromise the time is the essence of the contract, (iii) the plaintiff within April 26, 1969 will execute as vendor on behalf of his youngest minor son Kristo Prasad Bera, a kobala for about 6 cottas of land of Rs. 1,500 and register the same and endorse the registration receipt of the kobala in the name of the defendant No. 1 and deposit it in the Court and on that account pay Rs. 1. 100 to the defendant No. 1 and inform Court accordingly. If the plaintiff complies with all these he will be entitled to a decree in the suit without cost and the opposite party No. 1 will deliver amicably khas possession of the decretal property to the plaintiff, (iv) if the plaintiff do not perform the acts mentioned above within the time aforesaid the suit will be dismissed. (v) the suit will be dismissed against defendant No. 1, (vi) the Solenama will be a part of the decree and if the defendant No. 1 is unable to vacate the plaintiff will toe entitled to take possession with the aid of the Court and he will be liable to pay Rs. 200 as compensation, (vii) accordingly we the plaintiff and. defendant No. 1 pray that the suit be fixed for May 27, 1969 for disposal in accordance with the terms of the Solenama. "according to the plaintiff petitioner's case the Kobala was executed on April 25, 1969 and he tendered the money to the lawyer of the said opposite party and also to the opposite party; on their refusal to accept and inform the court accordingly, it became necessary that the amount should be deposited in Court. He accordingly filed an application on May 13, 1969 for deposit of money in Court. On this application the Court permitted the plaintiff to deposit the amount at his risk and thereafter it appears the amount was deposited. The plaintiff filed an application on May 27, 1969 for disposal of the suit in terms of Solenama. The opposite party No. 1 thereupon submitted that the deed should be perused and the final order be passed after few days. The suit was adjourned to June 2, 1969 and on that day the defendant No. 1 filed a petition for dismissing the suit according to the terms of the Solenama. It was stated therein that the plaintiff did
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
