T.RAMAPRASADA RAO
Meenakshinada Deikshtar – Appellant
Versus
Murugesa Nadar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :- The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. Under Exhibit A-2 dated 27th April, 1963, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the land belonging to the 1st defendant through the 2nd defendant who was the accredited power-of-attorney holder of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 225 as advance towards the total price of Rs.1,537, which advance, in terms of the agreement, was liable to be forfeited in case the sale was not completed within the prescribed time and due to the plaintiff's default. The term of the contract ran as under:
"If you (the plaintiff) fail to complete the sale within the aforesaid time, you (the plaintiff) shall lose the said advance. If I (the 1st defendant through the 2nd defendant) fail to get the said sale deed registered within the aforesaid time, I (the 1st defendant through the 2nd defendant) will give you (the plaintiff) two times above the said advance."
In short, for a breach of the contract on the part of either the plaintiff or the defendants, one has to pay to the other a sum of Rs.225/- as damages and the defendants had the additional privilege for forfeiting the sum of Rs. 225/- if the plaintiff commits a breach of contra
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.