PRASANTA KUMAR SUR Vs. INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTORS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal which arises out of a suit brought by him for specific performance of a contract for the sale of the property in suit. The relevant facts are almost all admitted ones.

(2.) Premises No. 83, Bagmari Road in the eastern suburbs of Calcutta originally belonged to the plaintiff and his co-sharers. The northern portion of the said premises came to be possessed by the plaintiff alone. On or about 4-2-1941 the plaintiff executed in favour of the defendant company, a conveyance in respect of the separated northern portion of the said premises for & consideration of Rs. 10,000/-.

(3.) The plaintiff's case is that he was in urgent need of Rs. 10,000/-. He had proposed to the defendant Company for an advance of Rs. 10,000/- on the security of the said property. The defendant refused to accept the property on mortgage but was agreeable to pay Rs. 10,000/-on the plaintiff executing a conveyance in respect of the said property. The defendant also agreed to execute an agreement for re-sale simultaneously with the execution of the conveyance for a consideration of Rs. 10,001/- on condition that the said consideration was paid and the transfer obtained within two years of the execution of the agreement. The plaintiff executed the conveyance on 4-2-1941. On 10-2-1941 such an agreement also was signed. On 26-11-1942 i.e. within twenty-two months of the date of the agreement the plaintiff offered to the defendant company to complete the purchase and sent a draft conveyance for approval. Certain letters were exchanged between the parties thereafter and ultimately on 18-12-1942 the defendant refused to complete the transaction on the allegation that there had been no concluded or valid agreement of sale as alleged. Pour months alter the expiry of the period of two years from the date of the agreement the present suit was filed on 10-6-1943. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to specific performance of the, contract for sale on payment of Rs. 10,001/- at the cost of the plaintiff. There was an alternative prayer for a decree for redemption on the footing that the transaction was in reality a mortgage and for consequential reliefs.