Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Page 0183

3. The said suit was resisted by defendants. So far as defendants No. 1 to 3 are concerned, they have filed their written statement at Exh.28 contending, inter alia, that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and the time was essence of the contract. It is also contended that though necessary documents were shown to the plaintiffs with regard to title clearance of the suit property, the plaintiffs have never tried to pay the remaining consideration and, because of that the Banakhat in question was cancelled by said defendants, therefore, suit was required to be dismissed. It is the say of the said defendants in their written statement that the plaintiffs were never ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and even though the plaintiffs were informed by letter dated 14-6-1982 that it is not necessary to take permission under the ULC Act, yet the plaintiffs have not taken any steps for paying the remaining amount. On this and other such grounds, the suit is resisted by the original owners, defendants No. 1 to 3.

13. Before answering the aforesaid questions, reference is required to be made to the agreement to sell, which is at Exh.64. Said agreement is dated 28-5-1982. As per the aforesaid agreement, defendants No. 1 to 3 agreed to sell the property to the plaintiffs for Rs. 28,000/- and at the time of executing said agreement, the plaintiffs had paid Rs. 2,800/- in cash to defendants No. 1 to 3. As per Clause 3 of the said agreement, time limit fixed for performance of the Banakhat is six months. It is provided in the said agreement that within said time limit, sellers were to satisfy the plaintiffs about the title clearance of the suit property. In Clause 4 of the agreement, it is provided that within the aforesaid period, the sellers were required to obtain necessary permission under the ULC Act, 1976 for selling the property, and after getting such permission from ULC authority, sale deed was to be executed. In Clause 6 of the agreement, it is provided that within the stipulated time of six months, if the sellers satisfy the purchasers about the title clearance of the property and obtains necessary permission under the ULC Act, and yet the purchasers (plaintiffs) fail to get the sale deed executed within the stipulated time, the Banakhat shall stand cancelled and the amount paid towards the earnest money shall be forfeited. Said agreement is signed by the sellers as well as purchasers and some witnesses.

14. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 3 have entered into said agreement at Exh.64. Subsequently, according to defendants No. 1 to 3, a letter was sent by them to the plaintiffs on 14-6-1982, by which the plaintiffs were informed that since the property in question is less than 1,000 sq.mtrs., permission under ULC Act is not necessary. In the said letter, it is mentioned that nobody has got any right, title or interest in the suit property in any manner.

15. It is argued by Mr. Raval that there is nothing to show that the plaintiffs have received such letter, which was sent by UPC. He further submitted that, the plaintiffs were not aware about aforesaid facts and, therefore, it was not necessary for them to get the sale deed executed within 90 days from ULC clearance, as per stipulation in agreement. Mr. Raval, therefore, submitted that the plaintiffs were althroughout under impression that title was required to be cleared and that is why they were not required to perform their part of the contract within the stipulated time.

29. So far as plaintiffs are concerned, even though they were parties to the agreement, they have not deposed before the Court but the evidence is given by their power of attorney holder, Samatullah Khan at Exh.59. Said witness has stated in his evidence that, in criminal case, no oral evidence was taken, which is found to be false as the defendants have produced copies of deposition of plaintiff No. 1, as well as son-in-law of plaintiff No. 1 at Exhs.73 and 74. It is required to be noted that for the first time, the plaintiffs had addressed a letter on 21-12-1982, i.e., after six month's period is over. As a prudent purchaser, the plaintiffs should have written letter or should have asked defendants No. 1 to 3 to perform their part of the contract within the stipulated time, or, at least, the plaintiffs should have tried to follow up the aspect about title clearance, which is admittedly not done within the aforesaid period of six months. It is also required to be noted that son-in-law of plaintiff No. 1, who was managing the affairs of the suit property has stated that he is a building contractor. Looking to the recital in the suit agreement, sale deed was to be executed within 90 days after getting permission under ULC Act. It is an admitted fact that ULC permission was not required to be taken in the present case and the same is not in dispute at all. Mr. Raval also frankly submitted that ULC permission was not required to be taken.