YORK EXPORT LTD. Vs. GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff M/S York Export Ltd. a company incorporated under the Companies Act, has filed the present suit through its Manager Shri S.N. Chopra, against the defendants, pleading the following cause of action.

(2.) The defendants own property measuring 164 Bighas 7 Biswas, entered against Khata Khatauni No. 98/105, Khasra No. 245, in the Jamabandi for the year 1990 -91, pertaining to Mauja Beerh Plassi, Pargana Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. On 2.8.1995 the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendants for the purchase of the above described land, which shall hereinafter be referred to as the suit land, at the rate of Rs.50,000/ - per Bigha. Rupees two lac were paid by way of advance on 2.8.1995 itself. The agreement was reduced into writing. The sale deed was to be got executed by 31.5.1996. Before that the plaintiff was to pay Rs.15,03,500/ - more to the defendants. That amount was paid on 21.8.1995. The sale deed could not be got executed by the plaintiff by the stipulated date, i.e. 31.5.1996, because by then the permission to purchase the land was granted only to the extent of 125 Bighas area. It may -be stated that the plaintiff, being a non -agriculturist, could not have purchased any property in the State of Himachal Pradesh, unless permission was granted, under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act. The agreement was, therefore, renewed on 31.5.1997. The renewed agreement was also reduced into writing. In terms of this renewed agreement, the plaintiff was to pay Rupees eighteen lac more, which it did pay on 4 /5th of June, 1996. It was agreed that the sale deed would be got executed by 31.12.1996, if by then the permission by the aforesaid date, the plaintiff was to pay another sum of Rupees seven lac and the sale deed in that situation could be executed upto 31.5.1997. It was further agreed that in case permission was not granted even upto 31.5.1997, the plaintiff would pay the balance of agreed consideration in entirety. The plaintiff could not get the permission to purchase the whole of the suit property even by 31.12.1996. It succeeded only in getting permission to the extent of 145 Bighas in all. So the plaintiff, through its Manager Shri S.N. Chopra, approached the defendants for payment of Rupees seven lac, as per one of the terms of the renewed agreement. Said Shri S.N. Chopra, accompanied by some other representation/ employees of the plaintiff, visited the defendants on 6.6.1997 at their place in Ropar and offered to give them six drafts of different amounts, aggregate whereof was Rupees seven lac. The defendants, however, refused to accept the said drafts. The plaintiff then wrote a letter dated 8.1.1996 to the defendants, informing that the permission for purchase of the entire suit land had yet not been accorded and that because of that time for execution of the sale deed automatically stood extended upto 31.5.1997. It was also stated in the said communication that the plaintiff was prepared to pay Rupees seven lac as per the renewed agreement. The defendants respondent through letter dated 16.1.1997 and alleged that because of the plaintiffs failure to get the deed executed by 31.12.1996 and its failure to pay the amount of Rupees seven lac by that date, the original agreement dated 2.8.1995 and the renewed agreement dated 31.5.1996 both stood revoked. The plaintiff then wrote to the defendants through letter dated 16.1.1997 was not correct. The defendants then sent a letter dated 29.3.1997 through an Advocate denying that the time stood extended upto 31.5.1997. The plaintiff took every possible step with all sincerity to obtain the permission for the purchase of the entire suit land measuring 164 Bighas 7 Biswas, but the Government offered to grant permission only to the extent of 145 Bighas area. Because of the rigid and tough stand of the Government, the agreement, in question, has been frustrated and so it (the plaintiff) is entitled to the refund of the money amounting to Rs.35,03,500/ - which it has paid to the defendants, together with interest at the rate of 18%, the amount whereof has been worked out at Rs.8,33,000/ -. Hence this suit for recovery of Rs.43,35,000/ -.

(3.) The defendants have filed a common written statement raising a number of preliminary objections besides contesting the claim on merits. The suit is alleged to have not been instituted by a proper person. The plaintiff is alleged to be stopped by the acts and conduct of its representative to institute the suit. It is also alleged that the plaintiff does not have any cause of action. The plaint is alleged to be not legally any properly verified.