9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether plaintiffs' firm is registered under the Indian Partnership Act? 2. Do plaintiffs prove that there was a concluded contract of sale of the suit property for Rs. 8,85,000? 3. Do they prove to have paid Rs. 2 lakhs on 30-11-1977 to defendant No. 5? 4. Do they prove payment of Rs. 1 lakh on 29-12-1977 and further sum of Rs. 1 lakh on 3-1-1978 to defendant No. 5 towards the suit transaction? 5. Do they further prove payment of Rs. 75,000 and Rs. 2,25,000 to defendant No. 5 as stated in para 6 of the plaint? 6. Do they prove that defendants committed breach of the contract to sell as alleged in para 13 of the plaint? 7. Do they prove that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract? 8. Whether plaintiffs prove that defendant Nos. 3 to 5 were authorized by defendant No. 1 to enter into an agreement and commit various acts and, therefore, the agreement is binding upon defendant No. 1? 9. Are plaintiffs entitled to specific performance of the contract? 10. If not, are they entitled to refund of Rs. 10,20,400 and from which defendant? 11. Are they entitled to creation of the charge of this amount over the suit property? 12. What decree or order? Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: Issue No. 1: The plaintiffs produced the Registration Certificate showing that the Plaintiff-firm is duly registered with the Registrar of Firms. This issue was answered in the affirmative. Issue Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 8: These issues were discussed together as they are inter-related. The plaintiffs alleged an oral contract of sale for the suit premises. They examined Harishlal Bhatia (PW-1) and R.T. Sharma (PW-2) to support their claim. Harishlal Bhatia stated that a meeting was held on 30-11-1977 where an agreement was reached for the sale of the suit premises for Rs. 8,85,000, with Rs. 3,00,000 to be paid as earnest money. However, the defendants denied such an agreement and contended that none of the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 had the authority to enter into such an agreement on behalf of defendant No. 1 Company. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the payment of Rs. 3,00,000 as earnest money and that there was no evidence of the defendants having the authority to sell the property. The issues were answered in the negative. Issue Nos. 6 & 7: The court found that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiffs issued a notice on 29-6-1979 demanding a refund of Rs. 3,00,000, which indicated that they had repudiated the contract. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to specific performance of the contract, and these issues were answered in the negative. Issue No. 9: Given the findings on the previous issues, the court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to specific performance of the contract, as there was no concluded contract and the plaintiffs had repudiated the contract. This issue was answered in the negative. Issue No. 10: The plaintiffs failed to prove the payment of Rs. 3,00,000 as earnest money. Therefore, they were not entitled to a refund of the said amount with damages and interest. The court noted that if the amount was paid towards earnest money of a concluded contract, the plaintiffs would be entitled to a refund of Rs. 3,00,000 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till payment. This issue was answered in the negative. Issue No. 11: In view of the findings on the previous issues, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the creation of a charge over the suit property. This issue was answered in the negative. Issue No. 12: The suit was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
