C L KATIAL Vs. C W V MADDEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both parties have filed appeals against a decree of the Commercial Subordinate Judge, Delhi, granting the plaintiffs a decree for Rs. 11,550/-with proportionate costs against the defendant, the amount being made a charge on the property in dispute until it is paid.

(2.) According to the plaintiffs they continued making efforts in the months following the agreement to get the defendant to carry out her part of the agreement without success, and finally on the 18th of April and the 1st of May, 1957, notices were sent to the defendant calling on her to complete the sale within a fortnight failing which steps to procure specific performance would be taken. It seems, however, that the defendant wrote a letter dated the 12th of April, 1957, to the Chief. Commissioner withdrawing the application made by her in a letter dated the 4th of September, 1956, for sanction for the sale of the premises to the first two plaintiffs and the suit was instituted in the beginning of July, 1957. The suit was contested by the defendant, whose principal plea was that she was a simple old widow and, practically illiterate, and that she had been tricked into entering the agreement by the first two plaintiffs with the assistance of a broker named R. Tuli. She alleged that in fact ail that she had agreed to was that she would sell the house to the plaintiffs for Rs. 1,10,000/- and that all she had to pay was the sum due to the Bharat Nidhi Ltd. under the mortgage, all other sums mentioned in the agreement being payable by the vendees. She also raised a number of other pleas the nature of which can be seen from the issues framed by the lower Court as follows :

(3.) The findings of the lower Court are generally in favour of the plaintiffs. It was found that the agreement had been entered into by the defendant without any fraud or misrepresentation of any kind and that although the plaintiffs at all times were ready and willing to carry out their part of the agreement, the defendant cancelled it without any justification. It was, however, held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to specific performance of the contract on the findings of issues Nos. (8) and (12) on the ground that since, under the terms of the defendant's lease of the site of the premises from the Government, the previous sanction of the Chief Commissioner was necessary for any transfer the agreement remained inchoate unless and until such sanction was obtained and therefore could not be made the subject of a decree for specific performance.