BURHANUR RAHAMAN Vs. NURUL ISLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed at the behest of the plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance of an unregistered agreement dated April 8, 2009, against the dismissal of the said suit.

(2.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contends that although the plaintiffs/appellants did not sign the agreement-in-question, such omission does not vitiate the agreement, since it was duly signed by the vendors/principal respondents and the appellants were all along ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Moreover, the appellants, by filing the suit for specific performance, have also expressed their intention to have the agreement performed.

(3.) Learned senior counsel further argues that although it was stipulated in Clause (2) of the agreement that the purchase shall be completed within three months from the date of execution of the agreement, the said Clause was subject to the rider that a good and marketable title is made out and the vendors make the property free from all encumbrances, claims and demands. However, the vendors/principal respondents did not hand over to the purchasers the title deeds, municipal bills and other papers necessary to ascertain such marketable title. As such, the stipulated period of three months was not treated by the principal respondents themselves to be the outer limit of performing the agreement. By not performing their part of the contract, it is argued, the principal respondents/vendors diluted the time-limit and, as such, it cannot be said that time was the essence of the contract.