SABINA DCOSTA Vs. JOSEPH ANTONY NORONHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17-3-1975 passed by the District judge, South Kanara, Mangalore in R. A. No. 20 of 1972 on his file, allowing the appeal on setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 15-7-1972, passed by the Prl. Civil Judge, Mangalore, in O.S. No. 116 of 1970 on his file. dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,117-50 P. along with costs, and future interest. According to him.' he entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant as per Ext. P-1 on 21-8-1969. It was agreed by the defendant that the suit property would be sold to the plaintiff for Rs. 30,000/- within the time fixed that is within 31-10-1969. There were some stipulations between the parties and the defendant was to comply with certain conditions. The plaintiff averred that the defendant did not comply with those conditions and was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract within time, though he was ready and willing at all times to perform his part of the contract. Thus, he asserted that it was the defendant who committed breach of that contract. Hence, he instituted the suit for return of the advance consideration, namely, Rupees 10,000/- along with special damages at Rs. 2000/- and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the suit amounting to Rs. 1117-50P. Altogether he claimed Rs. 13,117-50P. as stated above, along with future interest.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant. She contended that it was the plaintiff who committed the breach of contract, she having performed her part of the contract. She further asserted that Rs. 10,000/- were paid by the plaintiff towards earnest money by way security to perform his part of the contract and the same was liable to be forfeited and was forfeited. Hence, she contended that the suit of the plaintiff was not tenable. She denied that the plaintiff suffered any damages.