SUSILA Vs. RAJAGOPALA PATHAR DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant has preferred the second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.64 of 1983, dated 12.12.1983 on the file of District Court, East Thanjavur, Nagapattinam, confirming the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayiladuthurai in O.S.No.127 of 1981, dated 18.2.1983.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the defendant contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance of contract as he had committed breach of the contract. THE plaintiff had no funds in his hands at the relevant point of time and he had not even purchased the necessary stamp papers for engrossing the sale deed and complete the sale transaction. THE suit filed by the plaintiff is also barred by time since even according to Ex.A-1, the sale transaction has to be completed before 15.2.1977. However, the plaintiff is also not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance on the facts and circumstances of this case. This relief is also not available to the party in a case where money compensation is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Both the courts below have also failed to consider the alternative relief of money compensation claimed by the plaintiff. Art.54 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the case on hand. Even assuming that only second of the Article would apply, the last date for filing a suit is three years and even then the suit claim is barred by time in any view of the matter. THE decision relied on by both the courts below in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Food Corporation of India, etc. 96 L.W. 116 is not applicable.