SALRA DEVI Vs. RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order disposes of IA 8041/94, an application under Order 37 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiffs delivering summons for judgment to the defendants and IA No.8739/94 under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) Civil Procedure Code filed by defendants seeking leave to defend.

(2.) The suit under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the three plaintiffs against five defendants. According to the plaintiffs, they are all legal representatives being respectively the widow and two minor chidlren of late Brahm Parkash. who had passed away on 6.7.90. The defendants No.1 to 4 and 6 are heirs of Late Meer Singh. The defendant No.5 is the legal heir of late SurajSingh. The defendants No.1 to 4 and 6 and late Suraj Singh were the owners of certain immovable properties. On 22.2.90 the owners of immovable properties entered into an agreement to sell the said property in favour of late Brahm Parkash. An amount of Rs.3.00 lacs was paid to the vendors by the vendee in part payment of sale consideration. There were usual terms incorporated in the agreement imposing reciprocal obligations on the parties to the agreement. On 6.6.91, there was a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 followed by a notification under Section 6 on 18th December, 1991. The property was acquired and acquisition award was made on 2nd April, 1993. The amount of compensation awarded has been received by the defendants. In view of the land having been acquired, frustrating the agreement to sell, the plaintiffs have sued for refund of the amount of Rs.3 lacs with interest calculated @ 18% p.a. from the date of the agreement to sell till the date of realisation. Interest is claimed by way of damages on equitable grounds.

(3.) Leave to defend has been sought for mainly on two grounds: firstly, that the suit is barred by time; and secondly, that the plaintiffs had secured the signatures of the defendants for the purpose of obtaining severaHMOCs and income tax clearance certificates which the plaintiffs having failed in obtaining, there was breach of agreement on the part of the plaintiffs and they were not entitled to refund of the amount paid to the defendants under the agreement. It is note-worthy that the entering into the agreement, the vendors having received an amount of Rs.3 lacs, the land having been acquired (alongwith the several dates of two notifications and the award), the defendants having received the amount of compensation awarded under the land acquisition award have not been denied. There is no contest on these averments made in the plaint.