PUSHPARANI S SUNDARAM Vs. PAULINE MANOMANI JAMES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th August, 1992 passed by the High Court confirming the dismissal of the suit for specific performance.

(3.) The appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a contract dated 10th August, 1980 for the sale of an immovable property in accordance with the terms of that contract. The defendants respondents had agreed to sell to the appellant (first plaintiff) about 38 grounds of land mentioned in 'a' Schedule to the plaint to develop the area into a housing colony. As per the agreement, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the property from the defendant at a consolidated price to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 8,500. 00 per ground for the bare land and an additional price to be fixed of the superstructure after getting its valuation from the competent engineer or architect as per the agreement. This agreement was, of course, subject to the permission to be granted to the defendant under Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act (Act 24 of 1978). An obligation was cast under the agreement on the plaintiff to obtain such permission. On the date of the aforesaid agreement Rs. 5,00,07. 00 was paid by the first plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant's application initially to the authorities for the declaration of the exemption from the operation of the aforesaid Act was rejected. However, later the plaintiff was informed by the defendant that a communication dated 31st March, 1982 has been received by the defendant that exemption for the part of the land has been granted under the said Act. Thereafter, the present suit was filed by the appellant for the specific performance of the said contract for executing a sale deed. This suit was contested as defendant denied that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On the contrary he did not perform his part of the obligation under the said contract. The trial court dismissed the suit of the appellants, which is confirmed by the High Court. Aggrieved by that the present appeal has been preferred.