METTA RAMA BHATLU Vs. METTA ANNAYYA BHATLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In S.A. No. 750 of 1922: This is an appeal by the 3 defendant against the decree for specific performance of a contract of sale entered into by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs. It has been found that the contract was a valid contract and that the 3 defendant (appellant) purchased property from defendants 1 and 2 with notice of the contract. The only question argued in the appeal is that the! contract is not one of which performance can be enforced by virtue of Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877),because it is a contract for the non-performance of which compensation in money is an adequate relief. Under Section 12 of the Act, "unless and until the contrary is proved, the Court shall presume that the breach of a contract to transfer immoveable property cannot be adequately relieved by compensation in money. " This rule would prima facie apply here ; but it is argued that, as there is a condition in the contract for the payment of damages in default of performance, whether by the vendor or by the vendee, it must be held that the parties considered that the enforcement of these damages would be adequate in case the contract is not performed. So far as the default on the purchaser's side is concerned, it is not suggested that the provision for default can be treated otherwise than as furnishing security for performance. There is really nothing to show that the clause with, reference to the, default on the part of the vendor was for any other purpose. It is suggested that as the amount fixed as damages was high, such damages must be deemed to be adequate relief, but as the amount is only Rs. 37-8-0 it does not seem to me a tenable contention.

(2.) There are no other circumstances to prove that in this case money compensation is adequate. Consequently this plea must be rejected.

(3.) The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.