Back
High Court Of Calcutta
S. B. SINHA, BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
JAYA SEN - Appellant
Versus
SUJIT KR.SARKAR - Respondent
FIRST APPEAL 190 Of 1995
Decided On : 09/26/1997
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT - INTEREST ON BALANCE CONSIDERATION - COURT'S POWER TO GRANT INTEREST - EQUITABLE RELIEF - DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT - SECTION 21, SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTION 34, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - SECTION 55(4), TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - INTEREST ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-vendor filed a suit against the defendant-purchaser seeking specific performance of a contract for sale of a flat. The defendant had paid a part of the consideration amount and was in possession of the flat. The plaintiff claimed interest on the balance consideration amount, while the defendant contended that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for breach of contract.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for breach of contract and not interest on the balance consideration amount. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had not claimed interest in the plaint and that Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which governs suits for specific performance of contracts, specifically provides for damages for breach of contract. The court also held that Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows the court to grant interest in the absence of a contract or a provision of statute, did not apply in this case because the decree for specific performance was not a money decree.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the balance consideration amount? 2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages for breach of contract?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest on the balance consideration amount because: a. The plaintiff had not claimed interest in the plaint. b. Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which governs suits for specific performance of contracts, specifically provides for damages for breach of contract. c. Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows the court to grant interest in the absence of a contract or a provision of statute, did not apply in this case because the decree for specific performance was not a money decree. 2. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for breach of contract because: a. The defendant had failed to pay the balance consideration amount despite being in possession of the flat. b. The plaintiff had claimed damages for breach of contract in the plaint.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part and set aside the decree of interest. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages of Rs. 50,000/- plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum pendente lite and future.
( 1 ) THE question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount directed to be paid by the defendant (Purchaser) to the plaintiff (Vendor) by way of consideration for execution of a deed of sale or not is the question involved in this application.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the defendant-appellant claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs :-" (A) A decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises and delivery of khas possession of the suit premises and delivery of khas possession thereof to the plaintiff after evicting the defendants therefrom; (b) Alternatively a decree for specific performance of the contract directing the defendant No. 1 to pay the balance consideration of Rs. 2,34,000/- to the plaintiff and get a deed of conveyance executed and registered by the plaintiff at her own costs; (c) A decree for damages tentatively @ Rs. 50,000/- for wrongful use and occupation from 19-2-88 till the filing of the suit and further damages till recovery of possession, by adjustment of the amount with advances, alternatively for damages for breach of contract for Rs. 50,000/ -. "
( 3 ) THE admitted fact of the matter is as follows :-THE plaintiff-respondent entered into an agreement for sale of June, 1996 for purchase of the flat on the first floor of the eastern side of the premises No. 1/1z/1, Gariahat Road, Calcutta-68 for a consideration of Rs. 3,25,000/ -. The appellant initially paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and later on paid several amounts totalling Rs. 91,000/- for which a receipt was granted to him by the plaintiff. The said agreement for sale was an oral one. Admittedly there existed a dispute by and between the plaintiff and the defendant as to whether a garage was also the subject-matter of the aforesaid transaction or not. The respondent had put the appellant in possession of the aforementioned premises in part performance of the contract. As despite the same the balance consideration amount was not paid by the appellant, the plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit.
( 4 ) IN the suit the plaintiff, inter alia, pleaded as follows :"in case, however, the Court be pleased to grant unto the defendants the relief of specific performance, provided they prove their readiness and willingness to buy the flat, there should be a decree for specific performance of the contract directing the defendant No. 1 to pay the balance consideration of Rs. 2,34,000/- (Rupees two lacs thirty four thousand) only to the plaintiff and get a deed of conveyance executed and registered by the plaintiff at the cost of the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 was and is not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and in fact she has not the means of money to purchase the flat. The defendants literally practised fraud upon the plaintiff to enter upon the suit flat by misrepresentation. The defendants, therefore, are obliged to vacate the suit flat and the plaintiff is entitled to recover khas possession of the same. The defendants are liable to pay compensation for wrongful use and occupation of the suit flat from 19-2-1988. The claim in this regard is valued tentatively at Rs. 50,000/- subject to the final determination by the Court. The defendants are also liable to pay damages of Rs. 50,000/- for failure to act in terms of the agreement for sale. The plaintiff craves leave for the same in the alternative. "
( 5 ) THE learned trial Judge in its judgment dated 4-8-94 ordered :-"that T. S. 208/88 be and the same is decreed in part on contest with cost as against both the defts. Plaintiff do get a decree for specific performance of the oral contract that took place between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 in June, 1986 with regard to the suit flat on defendants paying the balance consideration of Rs. 2,34,000/- together with interest thereon at the simple rate of 10% per annum w. e. f. April, 1988 till end of July, 1994 within two months hereof or such further time,
AI
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
