9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Breach of terms embodied in the agreement. 2. Bona fide purchaser for consideration without notice. 3. Entitlement to refund of the amount paid. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Breach of Terms Embodied in the Agreement: The trial court found that the plaintiffs were not guilty of breach of the terms in the agreement of sale. It was determined that the defendant first party had "played false with the plaintiffs and sold the disputed property along with others to defendants second party in December 1942." The court concluded that the entire liability for the breach of the plaintiff's contract lay upon Mr. Guha and not on the plaintiffs. 2. Bona Fide Purchaser for Consideration Without Notice: On this issue, the trial court held that the defendants second party had failed to prove that they had paid the consideration money in good faith and without notice of the contract of 1931. The defendants second party claimed to be bona fide purchasers for value, having paid full consideration in good faith and without notice of the alleged contract of sale set up by the plaintiffs. However, the court was not convinced by their defense. 3. Entitlement to Refund of the Amount Paid: The trial court observed that it was unnecessary to consider in detail the alternative relief prayed for by the plaintiffs, which was a decree for a sum of Rs. 44,688/- with interest at 6% from the date of the suit till the date of realization against defendant first party. However, the court noted that if it had refused to decree the main relief of specific performance, there would have been no difficulty in passing a decree for the alternative claim against defendant first party. The decree for specific performance was granted, directing the defendants to execute and register a deed of sale for the consideration of Rs. 1,00,000, with the plaintiffs required to pay Rs. 77,000 to the defendants and be put in possession of the property. Appeals and Subsequent Proceedings: Three appeals were filed against the judgment and decree of the trial court: one by the defendant first party, one by the plaintiffs, and one by defendants second party. The appeals by the plaintiffs and defendant first party were dismissed due to non-prosecution. In the appeal filed by defendants second party, one of the appellants died, and the legal representatives were not substituted in time, leading to the appeal's abatement. Supreme Court's Decision: The Supreme Court had to determine whether the appeal could be heard and disposed of in the absence of the legal representatives of the deceased Saroda Charan Guha. The court noted that the decree passed by the trial court was a joint decree against both the defendant first party and defendant second party. The court held that the vendor (defendant first party) was a necessary party because the plaintiffs had also sought an alternative relief against him. The appeal could not proceed in the absence of the legal representatives of the deceased vendor, as it would result in inconsistent and contradictory decrees or the inability to grant proper reliefs. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the abatement of the appeal concerning the deceased vendor proved fatal to the entire appeal. The court emphasized that the vendor was a necessary party, and without his legal representatives, the appeal could not be competently heard. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
|
