RAMCHANDRA Vs. MANIKCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the defendant. The trial Court has passed a decree for specific performance.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the plaintiffs (respondents 1 and 2), when they were minors, through their guardian. Smt. Phuli-bai, their mother Smt. Phulibai had entered into an agreement dated 30-9-1961 on behalf of the minors for purchasing house property from the defendant (appellant) for a consideration of rs. 11,000. Bs. 1,000 were paid towards earnest and the rest of the amount was to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale-deed. The sale-deed was to be executed by the defendant by Kar-tik Sudi Poonam. Samvat 2018 (22nd Nov-mber 1961' ). The relevant terms of the agreement were:

(3.) THE defence was that the breach was committed by the plaintiffs themselves and that they were not entitled to the specific performance. It was urged on behalf of the plaintiffs that they had collected certain material to construct the partition wall as per the agreement, but the construction was stopped as the permission of the Corporation was not obtained by the defendant. The defendant, on the other hand, urged that the wall was constructed by him at his own expenses and that the work was stopped by the Corporation because the permission was not obtained. The defendant, therefore claimed that he was entitled to the expenses incurred by them; and as the plaintiffs' guardian was not prepared to pay the amount, the sale-deed was not executed. Thus, the breach was committed by the plaintiffs.