MUHAMMED Vs. CHANDRIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant instituted the suit for specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement dated 24.9.1994, for sale of the plaint schedule properly having an extent of 10 cents of land, which is a portion of the larger. extent of 28 cents. The trial court partly decreed the suit. The prayer for specific performance of the contract was rejected and the plaintiff was allowed to realise the advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from 24.3.1995 till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the rejection of the prayer for specific performance. The consideration agreed upon was Rs.3,500/- per cent of land. An advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. It was agreed that the transaction should be completed within a period of six months. There was a stipulation in the agreement that the defendants should measure out the property at their expense in the presence of the plaintiff and should entrust to the plaintiff the tax receipt and encumbrance certificate. It was also agreed that the sale price should be determined on the basis of the extent of the property actually found on measurement. The agreement was signed by the defendants only.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that he sought the assistance of the officers of the Village Office concerned for the purpose of measurement. When the measurement was in progress, on 15.3.1995, some of the neighbouring property owners raised objection regarding the boundary from which the measurements were taken. The measurement was accordingly postponed. On 24.3.1995, the plaintiff and the broker approached the defendants requesting them to perform their part of the contract. The defendants did not accede to the request. The plaintiff stated that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the sale deed could not be executed because of the breach of contract committed by the defendants. As an alternative to the prayer for specific performance, a prayer for return of the advance amount and for awarding damages of Rs.25,000/- was claimed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendants admitted the execution of the agreement. They contended that time was the essence of the contract. They agreed to sell the property for the purpose of purchasing another property for the second defendant and she had entered into an agreement for the purchase of a property. This was duly informed to the plaintiff as well. The plaintiff assured that the transaction would be completed within six months or else he would make arrangement to sell the property to other persons. The plaintiff failed to comply with the promise. He was not having the required money for purchasing the property. He committed breach of contract. The plaintiff even tried to extend the period of performance by pressurizing the defendants with the help of police. The defendants contended that the Village Officer did not measure the property. The -defendants were always ready to measure out the property and for that purpose they had engaged a person. On occasions where the defendants were ready to measure out the property, the plaintiff used to make excuses. At last, the plaintiff agreed to visit the property on 24.3.1995. He failed to do so. The defendants attended the Sub Registrar's Office, but the plaintiff did not attend. The defendants were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiff had committed the breach. The purpose for which the defendants agreed to sell the property did not fructify. The plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief of specific performance or to get the alternative relief for return of advance amount. The plaintiff is also not entitled to get any damages.