1969 (10) TMI 67 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a person is willing to perform his part of the contract? Held that - Appeal dismissed. In view of the arrangement made by Phoolchand it was clear that he had at all relevant times made necessary arrangements for paying the amount due, but so long as Nathulal did not carry out his part of the contract, Phoolchand could not be called upon to pay the balance of the price. It must, therefore, be held that Phoolchand was at all relevant times willing to carry out his part. of the contract.

Summary

Issues:
1. Breach of contract by the respondent in failing to pay the balance due.
2. Validity of the contract and possession rights under s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
3. Implied conditions in the contract regarding revenue record rectification and government sanction.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, Nathulal, claimed breach of contract by the respondent, Phoolchand, for failing to pay the balance due by the agreed date. The Trial Court initially decreed in favor of Nathulal, but the High Court reversed the decision, holding that Phoolchand had sufficient resources to make the payment. Both courts agreed that Phoolchand failed to pay on time and did not make the alleged tender. The dispute revolved around the payment default and contractual obligations.

2. The High Court's judgment focused on Nathulal's alleged breach of contract, but the Supreme Court emphasized the possession rights under s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Despite Nathulal's ownership, as no conveyance was executed in favor of Phoolchand, the latter could defend his possession under the doctrine of part performance. The Court clarified that the plea of part performance was available to Phoolchand, rejecting the argument based on s. 70(8) of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act.

3. The implied conditions in the contract regarding revenue record rectification and government sanction were crucial. Nathulal was obligated to rectify the revenue records and obtain government sanction before Phoolchand could be called upon to pay the balance. The Court held that Phoolchand's willingness to perform his part of the contract was evident, given the arrangements made for payment. The sequence of obligations under the contract was considered, emphasizing Nathulal's duty to fulfill certain conditions before demanding payment.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming Phoolchand's possession rights under s. 53A and emphasizing Nathulal's failure to fulfill implied conditions in the contract. The judgment clarified the significance of contractual obligations, possession rights, and implied conditions in property transactions, providing a comprehensive analysis of the legal issues involved.