1967 (6) TMI 44 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Agreement for execution of a deed of indemnity.
2. Approval of title.
3. Agreement to treat the agreement as terminated.
4. Extension of time for the transaction.
5. Sending of draft conveyance.
6. Entitlement to specific performance.
7. Jurisdiction of the Court.
8. Adequacy of pecuniary compensation.
9. Relief entitled to the Plaintiffs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue No. 1: Agreement for Execution of Deed of Indemnity
The Plaintiffs failed to prove that the Defendants agreed to execute a deed of indemnity. There was no documentary evidence supporting such an agreement, and even the demand notice did not mention the Defendants' failure to execute the deed of indemnity. The evidence provided by the Plaintiffs was found unconvincing. Thus, this issue was answered in the negative.

Issue No. 2: Approval of Title
The Plaintiffs' Solicitor sent requisitions-on-title to the Defendants' Advocate, which were returned unanswered. The Plaintiffs approved the title subject to advertisements and a deed of indemnity due to the loss of original documents. However, the Plaintiffs later expressed willingness to complete the transaction without insisting on these conditions, indicating approval of the title. The Defendants failed to prove that the Plaintiffs did not approve the title. Thus, the first part of this issue was answered in the affirmative, and the Defendants were bound to do their parts in the contract.

Issue No. 3: Agreement to Treat the Agreement as Terminated
The Defendants' claim that the agreement was terminated due to family disputes and an offer to refund the earnest money was not accepted by the Plaintiffs. There was no positive evidence of a settlement. The correspondence indicated that negotiations did not materialize into a settlement, and the agreement for sale remained subsisting. Thus, this issue was answered in the negative.

Issue No. 4: Extension of Time for the Transaction
The time for completing the transaction was impliedly extended until November 23, 1960, due to the conduct of the parties. The Defendants' inaction and the ongoing negotiations indicated an implied extension of time. The month of April, 1961, was not agreed upon as an extension by mutual consent. Thus, the extension was not made by mutual consent until April, 1961, but there was an implied extension until November 23, 1960, which was considered a reasonable time.

Issue No. 5: Sending of Draft Conveyance
Despite the Plaintiffs' failure to provide the best evidence, the surrounding circumstances indicated that the draft conveyance was sent to the Defendants. The Defendants' lack of interest in proceeding with the transaction and the evidence provided by the Plaintiffs' Solicitor supported this conclusion. Thus, it was held that the draft conveyance was sent and the Defendants failed to return it.

Issue No. 6: Entitlement to Specific Performance
The Plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance of the agreement for sale. The evidence showed that the agreement was not rescinded, and the Plaintiffs were ready and willing to complete the transaction. The Defendants' breach of the agreement and the Plaintiffs' consistent efforts to complete the transaction justified the grant of specific performance. Thus, this issue was answered in the affirmative.

Issue No. 7: Jurisdiction of the Court
The suit was for specific performance simpliciter and did not involve a claim for possession. The agreement did not make delivery of possession a condition precedent to the execution of the conveyance. The Plaintiffs relinquished their claim for possession, making it a suit for specific performance simpliciter, which could be heard by the Court within its jurisdiction. Thus, this issue was answered in the affirmative.

Issue No. 8: Adequacy of Pecuniary Compensation
The Court found that pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief. The Plaintiffs consistently sought specific performance and were willing to complete the transaction without insisting on additional conditions. The evidence did not support the Defendants' claim that pecuniary compensation would be adequate. Thus, both parts of this issue were answered in the negative.

Issue No. 9: Relief Entitled to the Plaintiffs
The Plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the premises, with the condition that they relinquish their claims to vacant possession and any claim for damages for non-delivery of such possession. The Defendants were ordered to execute the conveyance within a month of the Plaintiffs depositing the purchase money in Court. The Plaintiffs' claim for damages was not proved and thus rejected. The Defendants were also ordered to pay the costs of the suit to the Plaintiffs.

Conclusion:
The Plaintiffs were granted specific performance of the agreement for sale, with the condition that they relinquish claims to vacant possession and damages. The Defendants were ordered to execute the conveyance upon the Plaintiffs depositing the purchase money in Court. The Court held jurisdiction to hear the suit and awarded costs to the Plaintiffs.