ANANDILAL PODDAR Vs. GUNENDRA KR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff Anandilal Poddar instituted this suit on May 24; 1958 against Rai Bahadur Gunendra Krishna Roy and United Bank of India Ltd., for specific performance of the contract dated August 25, 1956 as modified on September 16, 1957 and for other reliefs. The contract dated August 25, 1956 was entered into between Anandilal Poddar and Rai Bahadur Gunendra Krishna Roy hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as Roy defendant for purchase of premises No. 57, Jatindra Mohan Avenue, Calcutta for the consideration of Rupees 6,01,000 on, inter alia, the following terms and conditions:

(2.) In paragraph 5 of the plaint it is alleged that the time to complete purchase and possession was by mutual agreement extended up to 15th April, 1958. In paragraph 6 of the plaint it is alleged that (sic) defendant refused to complete the sale. In paragraph 7 of the plaint it is alleged that the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance and to pay to the defendant bank out of the consideration amount all its dues under the mortgage decree. In the plaint the plaintiff further claimed damages against Roy defendant by reason of the refusal or the latter to complete the sale. The particulars of damages were Rs. 6,800 being the letting or occupation value of Rs. 200 per day from April 16, 1958 when the sale should have been completed and possession given and further damages at the same rate until possession was delivered together with interest thereon at 9 per cent per annum until payment. The alternative claim in the plaint was that if the court were pleased not to direct specific performance of the said contract the plaintiff would claim refund of Rs. 25,001 and Rs. 10,000 aggregating Rs. 35,001 with interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 being the difference between the contract price and the market price.

(3.) Roy defendant did not contest the suit. The defendant bank appeared at the trial. The suit came up before me and a decree was passed on March 11, 1960. The suit against the bank was dismissed with costs. The decree contains inter alia the following clauses: