9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir case that a sum of ₹ 31,000 was sale consideration and a sum of ₹ 4,000 and odd was paid as part consideration. The balance consideration was ₹ 28,500. He was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the respondents were avoiding to execute the sale deed. Though the trial Court found that respondents 1 and 2 committed breach of the agreement of sale but dented to them specific performance of the agreement on the ground that respondent No. 3 was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of prior agreement with the petitioner. The petitioner filed the appeal in the High Court. Pending appeal, he died. Therefore, his legal representatives have come on record. The learned Single Judge by judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they are sufficient to warrant refusal of the claim for specific performance. First is that the plaintiff claimed that he was already in possession of Door. No. 2/53 as a lessee and he was given possession of Door No. 1/53 on the date of the agreement itself, viz., 18.10.1976 by defendants 1 and 2. But, in the course of evidence he did not say anything about taking possession pursuant to the sale agreement. On the contrary, he deposed falsely that he did not mention in the plaint about getting possession of Door No. 1/53 on .18.10.197.6. It is mentioned in the evidence that Door No. 1/53 was not given to the plaintiff at any time in December, 1976, The tenant who was occupying the said portion has vacated the same and gave possession to def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not chosen to make a whisper about this in his deposition. On the other hand, it is contended that there is no denial of the said allegation in the written statement but it is not correct. In the written statement, the third defendant has clearly stated that at no time he had any talk with the plaintiff and he was never informed about the agreement with the plaintiff. 6. The third circumstance is that the plaintiff claimed that he had paid a sum of ₹ 400 in addition to the sum of ₹ 4,000 paid as advance to the second defendant at the latter's request for vacating Door No.1/53. In the deposition he had stated that he had mentioned the same, in his plaint, but it is not SO. It is also a false plea as found correctly by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
