K.V. ABDURAHIMAN Vs. CHEEKILODE PREMALATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is against the direction issued by the court as to costs in a suit for specific performance.

(2.) Shorn of details, the facts of the case are the following: The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant for purchase of the plaint schedule property and paid a portion of the sale consideration as advance. According to the plaintiff, though he approached the defendant with the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated in the agreement, with a view to deceive the plaintiff, the defendant was delaying the execution of the sale deed for one or other reason and while the matters stood thus, the defendant issued a notice to him stating falsely that the plaintiff had not approached him with the balance sale consideration within the time and that therefore, he has rescinded the contract.

(3.) The defendant filed written statement, contending that the time was very much the essence of the contract entered into by him with the plaintiff and that the plaintiff did not come forward to get the sale deed executed within the time stipulated in the agreement. It was also contended by the defendant that on the basis of the agreement entered into with the plaintiff, he had entered into another agreement with one Hemalatha for purchase of another property and paid a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs to her and on account of the breach committed by the plaintiff, he could not purchase the said property and consequently the advance paid by him was forfeited by the seller. In other words, according to the defendant, the defendant sustained loss on account of the breach of the contract committed by the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff is not even entitled to a decree for the advance sale consideration.