Spouses are competent witnesses in civil proceedings. A witness with personal knowledge of transactions can prove a case in the absence of the primary party. Furthermore, a court must adjudicate all pleaded reliefs, including compensation, when decreeing specific performance of a contract.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. A. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent/cross objector.

2. This appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 22.08.2017 passed by the Civil Judge No. 3 Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Title Suit No. 185/2010.

3. The respondent as the plaintiff had instituted a suit for specific performance of contract, permanent injunction, and compensation. The present appellants were the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 therein.

Plaintiff/Respondents case:

1. Case of the plaintiff in substance is that she and her husband are doctors by profession. In search of space to open up a doctor's chamber cum clinic they met defendant No.3 who introduced them to defendant No.2, the MD of defendant No.1 company. A discussion took place amongst them and the defendant No.2 verbally agreed to provide ground floor space measuring 1000 sq. ft plus frontage area of about 400sq. ft as well as first floor area of 1375 sq. ft. in the under construction Meghmallar Hill View apartment of defendant No.1 to the plaintiff and his wife at Rs.33,00,000/- which included registration cost etc.

2. Plaintiff and her husband were, however, told that permission for ground floor space has been applied for and there was 99% chance of getting the same from GMDA. They were further told that in case permission was not granted, they would be provided contiguous two bed room apartment on the first floor alongside three bed room apartments at the stipulated price.

3. The plaintiff and her husband readily agreed to the said proposal and also agreed to pay Rs.33,00,000/-for the entire area.

4. On 22.06.07 vide two allotment letters plaintiff's husband as well as the plaintiff were allotted apart./flat bearing No.-01/Gr. and apart./flat bearing No. 101/Al measuring 1000 sq. ft and 1350 sq. ft. at Rs.9,30,000/- and Rs.13,50,000/- respectively excluding cost of extra work under construction project 'Meghmallar Hill View', by defendant Guwahati No. 1. The apartment/flat bearing serial No. 101/Al was allotted to the plaintiff for a total cost of Rs. 13, 50,000/-. Rest Rs.10, 20,000/- was, thus, charged for registration and frontage area etc.

5. On 06.07.2007 registered deeds of agreement bearing No.8705/07 & 8706/07 were executed by defendant No.1 through defendant No.2 in favor of the husband of the plaintiff and the plaintiff respectively for apart./flat bearing No.- 01/Gr. and apart./flat bearing No. 101/A1 measuring 1000 sq. ft and 1350 sq. ft. respectively for consideration price of Rs.9,30,000/- and Rs.13,50,000/- respectively.

6. The defendants failed to obtain NOC in respect of 1000sq. ft. open space on the ground floor. They kept on assuring the plaintiff of getting the permission or NOC stating that requisite steps were taken by them in this regard. The plaintiff and her husband, on Bonafide belief, continued to make payment and since 23.06.06 till 05.09.08 (on different dates) she and her husband together paid Rs.30,00,000/- to the defendants. The plaintiff paid Rs. 18,00,000/- and her husband paid Rs. 12,00,000/-.

7. Further case of the plaintiff is that on 23.06.08 defendant No.2 informed her husband that frontage in front of 1000 sq. ft. area was not possible to be conveyed. The husband of the plaintiff then asked for providing alternative option of two bed room flat contiguous to three bed room flat but defendant No.2 turne