JYOTSNAMOYEE DEBI Vs. NARAYAN CHANDRA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Misc. Appeal is directed against the order dated 2nd Sept., 1985 passed by Sri B.K. Lala, Learned Asstt. Dist. Judge, 3rd Court, Alipur in Title Suit No. 214 of 1982 whereby the plaintiff/Respondent Narayan Chandra Pals application for temporary injunction was allowed in his favour. Plaintiff Narayan case was that the Defendant/Appellant. Jyostnamoyee Debi had agreed to sell and that he had agreed to purchase by an agreement dated 5-9-79 her property situated at 66/1, Pern Road, Calcutta at a total consideration price of Rs. 1,00,000.00 that a sum of Rs. 5001.00 had been paid by him and accepted by her as Earnest money, that in Oct. 1979 he paid to her a further sum of Rs. 15,000.00 and Rs. 20,000.00 were paid by him to her in Jan., 1980. Grievance of the plaintiff as put forward in the Trial Court was that Jyotsna did not allow him to give inspection of the original document relating to her title to the suit property, that subsequently Jyotsna succeeded in getting a draft Deed of Conveyance signed by him on the plea that the same would be required for getting income-tax clearance certificate. The plaintiff thereafter repeatedly asked the defendant to make good the contract but to no effect till by a letter dated 15th of Sept., 1982, the plaintiff was informed that the agreement for sale had been already cancelled and Earnest money forfeited. On the basis of these allegations, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid title suit and during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for injunction with a prayer for restraining the defendant/appellant Jyotsna from transferring the suit premises to a third p y.

(2.) Defendant/Appellant filed a Written Statement denying the allegations made against her by the Plaintiff. Her defence was that she was all along agreeable to perform her part of the contract and that she had repeatedly asked the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff, however, did not pay heed to her letters and he remained silent for long two and half years and did not care to answer any of her letters addressed to him. In the circumstances, she took the defence that she had no other alternative but to forfeit the Earnest money and to treat the agreement for sale as cancelled.

(3.) The Trial Court heard both sides case and disposed of the application for injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The Trial Court gave a compliment to the defendant by observing inter-alia "there is nothing on record to show that the defendant was in default to complete the transaction............I find that the plaintiff could not satisfy about his readiness and willingness to complete the disputed transaction as requested by the Defendant." Nevertheless, the Trial Court passed the order of injunction in his plaintiffs favour observing inter-alia that unless the prayer was allowed, The Trial of the suit will be unnecessarily delayed and there would be multiplicity of proceedings causing harassment and injury to both sides."