SM PADMA RANI SIKDAR Vs. SM KARUPUR SHAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of a written contract dated 17.10.1977, the plaintiff filed Title Suit no. 25 of 1978 in the court of the 1st Subordinate Judge, Alipore, for Specific Performance of Contract and other reliefs. The learned trial court decreed the suit. The defendant, not accepting the judgement and decree, has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Admittedly, the defendant contracted to sell the suit properly to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 47,000.00. It is also not disputed that Rs. 10001.00 was paid as earnest money to the defendant. The terms of the contract were reduced to writing. It is also not disputed that at the time of the execution of the contract, the vacant possession of the entire ground floor of the suit premises was given in favour of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff has been residing on the ground floor with her family. As per contract, it was agreed that the defendant would execute and register the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff within one month after obtaining necessary permission for the Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, or on the expiry of the 60 days from the date of making application to the Competent Authority for permission. A petitions filed to the Competent Authority and actually permission to sell was accorded. That was on the 23rd Nov., 1977. Then, it is alleged by the plaintiff that after that she became ready for completing the Sale Deed and purchased requisite Stamp of Rs. 501.00 from the Collector. It is also averred in the plaint that the plaintiff thereafter tendered the balance consideration money to the defendant and asked the defendant to execute and register the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff. Then it is pleaded that in two occasions, because of the difficulties of the defendant, she prayed for extensions of time and the same were granted. It is said that on the last occasion, time was extended upto 12th Feb., 1978, on the basis of the endorsement dated 19th Jan., 1978, signed by the defendant.

(3.) Then there are allegations in the plaint that the defendants was delaying the matter and so the registered notice dated 6th Feb., 1978 was issued through the Advocate of the plaintiff, asking the defendant to perform her part of the contract. The defendant replied to that notice through her Advocate, Shri Nirmalendu Majumdar. This is also not denied by the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the reply from the defendant's Advocate contains false and wrong statements and, as a matter of fact, the plaintiff was all along ready and willing to pay the balance consideration money. Another letter followed from the plaintiff's side and that is dated 15th Feb., 1978, through the Advocate of the plaintiff, Shri Amulya Narayan Ghatak. Thereafter, according to the plaintiff, the husband of the plaintiff, one Shri Rama Prasad Mondal and some others approached the defendant personally on the 20th Feb., 1978, and tendered the money. It is stated that at that time, the defendant was requested to execute the Sale Deed and deliver vacant khas possession of the first floor of the premises. As, ultimately the defendant did not execute the Deed of Conveyance, the plaintiff filed the suit on 23rd Feb., 1978.