ARJUNLAL BHATT MALL GOTHANI Vs. GIRISH CHANDRA DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland. The defendants are the appellants. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows.

(2.) There were four rooms in a land of an extent of 18 losses belonging to the plaintiff's father, in one of which the defendants were tenants since 1922 on an annual rent of Rupees 410/-. In 1942 they took another room on rent agreeing to pay Rs. 425/- a year. According to the defendants they built a double storeyed building at a cost of about twenty-six thousand rupees behind the above mentioned four rooms with the consent of the plaintiff's father, who was also the appellants' attorney. Subsequently the plaintiff's father made a gift of this property in favour of his son, the plaintiff. The plaintiff's father had filed a suit against the appellants for certain sums due to him from the appellants. He had also filed a petition for declaring them insolvent. The plaintiff himself had filed a suit in the Sub-Judge's Court at Jorhat T. S. No. 14 of 1958 for eviction of the appellants from suit land and premises. On 7th June, 1959 an agreement was entered into between the appellants and the 1st respondent under which the 1st respondent agreed to sell the whole property to the appellants for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to be paid to him by annual instalments of Rs. 10,000/- on the 31st March of each year, the first instalment being payable on 31st March 1960. As soon as the purchaser paid Rs. 40,000/- the vendor was to execute a sale deed for half the land and half the building. If the balance of Rs. 40,000/- was paid in equal annual instalments by 31st March of each year and the entire amount paid within 8 years the vendor was to execute a sale deed for the remaining half. The most important clause of this agreement which it would be useful to extract in full reads:

(3.) As a result of this agreement all the three proceedings against the appellants started by the respondent and his father were withdrawn. The first instalment was not paid on 31st March, 1960. Instead the appellants filed a petition before the Subordinate Judge at Jorhat on 31st March 1960 stating that the plaintiff could not be found and wanted to be permitted to deposit the sum of Rupees 10,000/- in Jorhat Treasury to the credit of plaintiff. But even by 2-6-1960 no Treasury challan had been submitted by them. Instead they filed a petition stating that they had not deposited Rs. 10,000/- as the plaintiff had asked them not to do so and prayed for keeping the petition on file.