MAC ENTERPRISES, SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. ALFRED M. COTA, R/O CAMPAL, PANAJI - GOA Vs. SHRI DATTARAM LOTLECAR, RESIDENT OF VEREM, BETIM, BARDEZ GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri V.A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri S. G. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Order passed by the Lower Appellate Court, whereby the appeal preferred by the Respondent was allowed and the Judgment and Decree passed by learned Trial Judge was set aside and the suit filed by Respondent was partly decreed and the Appellants, inter alia, were directed to deliver possession of two flats in the building constructed by the Appellants in the suit property to the Respondent. The Appellants were also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/ - per month to the Respondent from 11.07.1996 till the possession of the two flats is handed over to the Respondent.

(2.) A suit came to be filed by the Respondent essentially on the ground that there was an Agreement executed between the Appellants and the Respondent whereby the land was agreed to be transferred to the Appellants for the purpose of construction and in view of such rights in the land, the Respondent was entitled to receive two flats in the proposed building to be put up by the Appellants. The Agreement, inter alia, contemplated that such two flats were to be delivered to the Respondent from the date of obtaining final permission from the statutory authorities. As per the findings of the Court below, the final N.O.C. for construction was obtained on 10.07.1994. In view of the breach committed by the Appellants in delivering the said two flats, the suit came to be filed by the Respondent for specific performance and damages in accordance with what was contemplated in the Agreement of Rs.10,000/ - per month.

(3.) LEARNED Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, after framing of issues and recording of evidence by Judgment and Decree dated 29.01.2010, dismissed the suit filed by the Respondent. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the Respondents filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, which came to be allowed by the impugned Judgment and the suit filed by the Respondents was partly decreed on terms stated herein above. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the Appellants have preferred the present Appeal.