PURNIMA RANI Vs. LAKSHMI BALA DASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree passed by Shri A.K. Chakravorty, the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Midnapore, in other Appeal No. 306 of 1977 reversing the judgement and decree passed by Shri M.N. Das, the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Midnapore in Other Suit No. 35 of 1975 and dismissing the suit.

(2.) Plaintiff Purnima Rani Dutta, filed the aforesaid suit against the defendant Lakshmi Bala Dasi for specific performance of the contract for sale of the suit property and for possession. It was the case of the plaintiff in brief that the suit property originally belonged to one Sushila Sundari Dasi who executed a deed of gift dated 29-6-51 in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit property. The defendant possessed the suit property since then and her name was duly recorded in the R.S. record of rights. The defendant entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 5,300/- and executed a registered deed of agreement on 24-11-72 on acceptance of Rs. 500/- as earnest money towards the consideration. It was agreed between the parties that within four months from the date of the execution of the deed of agreement the plaintiff would pay the balance consideration money of Rs. 4,800/- and the defendant would execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. It was further stipulated in the agreement that the defendant within three months from the date of the execution of the deed of agreement would amicably evict the tenant in respect of the suit property and at the time of the execution of the sale deed, the defendant would give vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and that in default the defendant would refund the earnest money of Rs. 500/- with interest to the plaintiff. After the execution of the deed of agreement for sale the defendant handed over the title deeds to the plaintiff. The plaintiff tendered the balance consideration money in terms of the agreement and requested the defendant to execute the sale deed but the defendant on some pretext did not accept the balance consideration money from the plaintiff and did not execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement. The plaintiff was all along ready and willing to perform her part of the contract but the defendant refused to perform her part of the contract. The plaintiff accordingly brought the suit.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit after filing the written statement. The defendant admitted in her written statement the execution of the deed of agreement for sale. the acceptance of the earnest money of Rs. 500/- and also the handing over of the title deeds to the plaintiff. The defendant, however, denied the plaintiff's allegation regarding the tender of the balance consideration money within the stipulated period, time being the essence of the contract. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff failed to perform her part of the contract in terms of the agreement and that it was not possible on the part of the defendant to give vacant possession of the suit property in terms of the agreement. The defendant accordingly expressed her willingness to refund the earnest money with interest but the plaintiff demanded Rs. 1,000/- which the defendant refused to pay. The plaintiff being enraged by defendant's such refusal, brought the suit. The plaintiff was therefore not entitled to the relief as prayed for.