SURAJ BAI Vs. NAWAB MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant respondent in this case is Nawab Mohammed Mukarram Ali Khan who owned a Haveli populardy known as Nawab Sahib Ki Haveli situated in Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur. He agreed to sell a portion of it for a sum of Rs. 49,999/- to the plaintiffs Ram Kishore and others by an agreement dated 24th August, 1955, which has been placed on the record and marked Ex. 1. It may be stated here that the plaintiffs Ram Kishore, Ganeshlal and Damodar Dass died during the pendency of this appeal and are now represented by their heirs. A part of the sale price, that is Rs. 10,000/- was paid at the time of the execution of the agreement and it was stipulated that the plaintiffs purchasers would get the sale deed prepared at their expense and thereafter the defendant would present the same for registration and get the sale-deed registered on payment of Rs. 39,999/- and also transfer the possession of the property in question to the vendees. It has also been provided in the agreement that the party committing breach of the contract would be liable to pay damages to the other party to the extent of 25% of the sale price. THE plaintiffs' case is that they had purchased stamps worth Rs. 1000/- for execution of the sale deed and also asked the defendant to execute the sale-deed on the stamps. It was also alleged by them that they sent a draftsman to take measurements of the property agreed to be sold to them but the defendant prevented him from taking the measurements. THE plaintiffs have charged the defendant with a fraudulent intention of illegally putting an end to the contract by having got initiated a complaint in respect of the proposed sale in the Tehsil Jaipur as a result of which the plaintiffs received a notice dated 13th September, 1955, from the Tehsil whereby they were restrained from purchasing this property. Copy of this notice is marked Ex. 3. It was also alleged in the plaint that the defendant gave a notice to the plaintiffs dated 9th September, 1955, by which he wrongly repudiated the contract on the false ground that the plaintiffs had not purchased the stamps for drawing out the sale deed thereon within the stipulated period of seven days. A copy of this notice dated 9th September, 1955, has also been placed on the record and is marked Ex. 2. It was stated in the notice that the defendant had forfeited Rs. 10,000/- paid to him by the plaintiffs as part of the purchase price and would bring a suit against the vendees for Rs. 12500/- as damages. THE plaintiffs have further averred that in spite of the defendant's notice dated 9th September, 1955, wrongly repudiating the contract, they called upon the defendant by their notice dated 10th October, 1955, that they were still prepared to purchase the property in question and if within a month, the defendant failed to execute the sale-deed, the plaintiffs would be forced to bring a suit for enforcement of their right. A copy of the notice dated 10th October, 1955, has also been placed on the record and is marked Ex. 4. THE plaintiffs' case is that in spite of their notice dated 10th Oct. , 1955, the defendant did not execute a sale-deed in their favour. THEy therefore put an end to the contract by their notice dated 22nd March, 1956, and called upon the defendant to return ten thousand rupees paid to him as part of the purchase price together with a sum of Rs. 12,500/- as damages as provided in the contract. Ultimately, the plaintiffs filed the present suit in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur, on the 5th April, 1956, and claimed a decree of Rs. 22,500/- on account of the alleged breach of contract on the part of the defendant.

(2.) IN the written statement filed by the defendant, he admitted the fact of entering into the contract in question and also payment to him a sum of Rs. 10000/-as part of the purchase price at the time of the agreement to sell. But he pleaded that the plaintiffs had committed breach of contract and were not prepared at any time to perform their part of the contract. The defendant, therefore, contested the plaintiffs' right to cover any amount from him either by refund of the part of the purchase price or by way of damages.