AJIT KUMAR BOSE Vs. SNEHALATA BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of a plot of land comprising an area of 5 cottahs, 9 chataks, between the plaintiffs and the defendants and also for a decree for Rs. 3, 380 as damages and also for an order that the defendants do execute a bond of indemnity in respect of the said agreement and the costs etc. According to the plaint, by a written agreement for sale dated June 20, 1960, executed within the jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiffs agreed to purchase from the defendants and the defendants agreed to sell to the plaintiffs premises No. 37/1, Hindusthan Road, Ballygunge, Calcutta, outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The relevant terms under the said agreement may be stated as follows:

(2.) The material parts of the written statement are stated below: The defendants never agreed to execute a deed of indemnity in respect of the title of the defendants to the said premises. The defendants state that neither the title deeds nor any answer to any requisition-on-title was given to the plaintiff's Solicitor. It is also stated that the approval of the title by the plaintiff's Solicitor was conditional and as such, amounted to rejection of title of the defendants by the plaintiffs. The defendants admitted that on account of some family disputes in respect of the said property they wrote a letter through their Advocate dated November 23, 1960, informing the Solicitor for the plaintiffs that it would not be possible for them to proceed with the said agreement for sale. In the said letter the defendants also offered to return the earnest money and pay the actual costs incurred by the plaintiffs. Immediately, thereafter, there was a talk of settlement between the parties and the plaintiffs at the request of the defendants agreed to treat the said agreement as abandoned. By a letter dated November 28, 1960, the plaintiff's Solicitor wrote to the Advocate for the defendants demanding a sum of Rs. 5,400 in full settlement of their claim. The defendants considered the said demand of Rs. 5,400 as exaggerated ad as such, refused to pay the same. The defendants orally, as well as by their Advocate's letter dated November 23, 1960, offered to put an end to the said agreement which was accepted by the plaintiffs. Under the circumstances the defendants did not answer to the requisition-of-title and there was no occasion for the plaintiffs to send the draft conveyance on or about April 12, 1961, as alleged. The defendants have denied that there was any extension of the date of performance of the agreement of alleged in para 9 of the plaint. The plaintiffs by their said letter dated November 28, 1960, admitted that pecuniary compensation for the non-performance of the said agreement would afford adequate relief to them and that such compensation could be easily assessed or ascertained in terms of money. The plaintiffs, therefore, are not entitled to specific performance of the said agreement and the defendants are not bound to execute the conveyance. The defendants have denied also the plaintiff's claim of the said sum of Rs. 3,380 or any other sum as damages by way of reasonable letting value of the said property or as loss of interest. It is also stated that the Court has no jurisdiction to try or entertain this suit inasmuch as this suit is a suit for land situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The issues were settled as follows:

(3.) It is not disputed that the agreement for sale of the premises No. 37/1, Hindusthan Road, Ballygunge, Calcutta, was executed within the jurisdiction of this Court. Admittedly the property was situated outside the jurisdiction, of this Court, but the plaintiff No. 1 has stated that the agreement for sale of the said premises was executed at premises No. 8A, Beadon Street, Calcutta, within the aforesaid jurisdiction. The defendants, on the other hand, have admitted that the agreement was executed between the parties at premises No. 11, Goabagan Street, Calcutta. The said two premises, situate within the jurisdiction of this Court, are very close to each other and are places where either or more of the defendants used to reside at the relevant time. The said agreement for sale dated June 20, 1960, (Ex. A) is an admitted document. Although various issues were raised, the substantial issue of fact is whether the plaintiffs accepted the proposed offer of the defendants to terminate the said agreement for sale. I, therefore, propose to discuss the issue No. 3 first.