RAGHUVIR SINGH BHATTY Vs. RAM CHANDRA WAMAN SUBHEDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of a plot of land in old Kanpur. The trial court decreed the suit. The lower appellate court has reversed the decree for specific performance but has granted refund of the bare amount of earnest money without interest. This, the plaintiff feels, is a poor recompense to him in the deal which he had entered into on 23.10.1981 with the defendant. He had then paid a sum of Rs. 41,670 as earnest money which was half the total price settled. The defendant was to obtain permission of sale from the competent authority, urban land ceiling and to inform the plaintiff about it. Within 3 months thereof, the plaintiff would pay the balance money and get the sale deed registered. The whole transaction of sale was to be over within a short span of six months. That, however, did not happen. It appears that the defendant did not apply for permission for a good three years, as there was some dispute between him and a third party over a portion of the land. In the meanwhile, prices of land in the town were shooting up. To make matters worse, on 15.4.1985 the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, declared an area of 2091 sq. mtrs of the defendant's land as surplus.

(2.) All this while the plaintiff and the defendant maintained a steady silence. After the execution of the agreement in October 1981, it appears that there was no correspondence between the parties. In 1982 the plaintiff claims to have given a notice but that has not been found to be proved. On 16.7.1985, the defendant played his first move - a notice to the plaintiff that in view of the order of the competent authority declaring surplus land, the agreement stands frustrated. This notice evoked a sharp response from the plaintiff who refuted the defendant's stand that the contract had frustrated and also pressed for specific performance of the agreement. The defendant, however, stood by his stand that the contract had frustrated and again gave a notice on 7.9.1995 sending therewith with a cheque for Rs. 41,670, the earnest money paid by the plaintiff. At this juncture on 3.10.1985, the appeal under the Ceiling Act was allowed and the surplus was reduced to 400 sq. yards. The plaintiff who seems to have had some inkling of this order sent his replies dated 25.10.1985 and 26.11.1986 referring to the order and demanding specific performance of contract. The plaintiff also returned the cheque sent by the defendant. After a long wait of two and a half years, the plaintiff filed the suit giving rise to the present appeal on 14.7.1988. During the pendency of the appeal, the Ceiling Act was repealed.

(3.) I have heard Sri G.N. Verma, counsel for the appellants and Sri Ravi Kant, Sr. Advocate, counsel for the respondents.