Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

206 of 1996 for specific performance, for declaration and for injunction. O.S. No. 210 of 1996 was dismissed.

2. A.S. No. 422 of 1998 is filed by defendants 1 and 2 and A.S. No. 341 of 1998 is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 206 of 1996. A.S. No. 346 of 1998 is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the dismissal of O.S. No. 210 of 1996. Hereinafter, Sulaiman Rowther and Kamarunnissa are referred to as the `appellants', Singaravelu Kounder is referred as the `1st respondent' and Abdul Razack Rowther is referred to as the `2nd respondent'.

An alternative prayer for return of Rs. 2,14,800/- and damages of Rs. 25,000/- was made by the first respondent, apart from the prayer for declaration and specific performance.

5. The second respondent contended that as per the agreement dated 20-1-1995, he had paid Rs. 50,000/-

A.S. NOS.341, 346 & 422 OF 1998 :: 7 ::

as advance. Another sum of Rs. One lakh was paid on 17-4-1995 and the period of the agreement was extended till 20-1-1996. The agreement dated 9-6-1995 was collusively entered into between the appellants and the first respondent. The 2nd respondent did not appear in the suit and he was set exparte. No evidence was adduced by him.
7. The points arising for consideration in this appeal are the following: (1) Whether the first A.S. NOS.341, 346 & 422 OF 1998 :: 9 ::
respondent is entitled to get a decree for specific performance, declaration and injunction. (2) Whether the first respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. (3) Whether the first respondent is disentitled to get a decree for specific performance since he has incorporated recitals and conditions in Ext. X2 varying from the terms in Exhibit A1 agreement. (4) Whether time was the essence of the contract. (5) Whether the appellants are entitled to get a decree for recovery of possession as prayed for in O.S. No. 210 of 1996. For the sake of convenience, all the points are considered together.

22. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the first respondent (Singaravelu Kounder- plaintiff in O.S. No. 206 of 1996) is not entitled to get the equitable relief of specific performance, declaration or injunction as prayed for in O.S. No. 206 of 1996.

However, he is entitled to get a decree for return of Rs. 1,85,000/- with interest at 12% per annum on Rs.