JAYANTHI R RAI Vs. PAUL D SILVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred by defendants in a suit for specific performance. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are the appellants in M.F.A. No. 462 of 1994, whereas defendants Nos. 6, 11, 12 and 13 are the appellants in M.F.A. No. 1174 of 1994. They are aggrieved by the order of the court below appointing the plaintiffs as the Receiver of the plaint schedule property. The brief allegations in the plaint relevant for the purpose of the appeal are as follows:

(2.) It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants executed on 21-1-1981 an agreement to sell the plaint schedule property which is described as a coffee estate. The period stipulated for completion of the contract under the agreement is 11/2 years from the date of the agreement with an option to extend it by six months. According to the plaintiffs, before the completion of the contract several other formalities had to be completed so as to make the title of the vendors clear, that the vendees were to complete the departmental procedures to enable the vendors to sell the property and these were undertaken by the plaintiff to be completed on behalf of the vendors defendants and that after completing these formalities, the plaintiffs approached the defendants to perform their part of the contract, when the defendants resiled. The suit was thereupon filed for specific performance of the contract on 1-10-1993.

(3.) Several contentions have been urged by defendants ranging from the defective nature of the plaint, want of proper pleading, non-payment of correct court fee, limitation, invalidity of the agreement to sell, the fraudulent conduct of the plaintiffs, etc. As the dispute in the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is not necessary for this Court to reiterate in detail the entire allegation in the pleadings except those that are relevant for the issue.