NANDIADA DANDASI AND ORS. Vs. KISHORE CHANDRA SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS have carried this appeal against the decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge decreeing recovery of money and damages in a suit for specific performance of contract. Plaintiff has filed a cross -appeal asking for specific performance of a contract.

(2.) PLAINTIFF is a broker and carries on the business of sale and purchase of real property. In course of his business he entered into an agreement with Defendants 1 to 4 on 1 -2 -1905 (Ext. 4) for purchase of 94 cents of land at the rate of Rs. 255/ - percent. A sum of Rs. 1,000/ - was paid by way of advance and it was stipulated that within four months from the date of the agreement, the boundaries of the 94 cents would be fixed up, non -encumbrance certificate would be produced and title would be looked into and Defendants would sell the property to such persons as Plaintiff may direct and execute appropriate sale deeds and register the same. In the event of failure by the vendors to fulfil the obligation under the contract, they would be liable to refund the advance on account of consideration money and compensation of a sum of Rs. 5,000/ -. Alternately, if the Plaintiff failed to comply with his obligation under the agreement, he would take refund of the advance and pay a similar compensation of Rs. 5,000/ - to the vendors and would, lose his right to claim specific performance at the contract. On 1st of February, 1965, 22 cents out of the 94 cents were sold under four sale deeds each being for 5 1/2 cents in favour at one Sadananda, one at such sale deeds being Ext. 14. In Ext. 4, there was an endorsement of payment at Rs. 7,500/ - on 5 -2 -1965 and another endorsement dated 3.11.1905 at payment of Rs. 4,000/. It was clearly indicated in the last endorsement that upto then a total amount of Rs. 12,500/ - had been paid towards the consideration money agreed to be paid under the document. Plaintiff issued a notice on 5 -12 -1967 under Ext. 2 and filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement on 23 -12 -1907 and by amendment asked for relief at damage and recovery of the consideration money. On 20th of August, 1970, the learned Trial Judge allowed the amendment. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court ultimately came to hold that Plaintiffs was not entitled to specific performance of contract, but found that he was liable to recover a sum of Rs. 17,900/ - including the compensation of Rs. 5,000/ - with proportionate costs.

(3.) WE may deal with the claim in the cross -appeal first. Contracts in regard to purchase of immovable property are ordinarily allowed to be specifically enforced on account of the fact that the contracting buyer cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money. It is assumed in law that the intending buyer has a special interest for the property in question and damages by way of compensation would not be adequate. Provision has, therefore, been made in the Specific Relief Act for specific performance of contract in regard to immovable property and a statutory presumption has been raised that for non -performance of such contracts damages would not be adequate compensation.