MUGNEERAM BANGUR AND CO. Vs. KALIDAS GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Art. 133 of the Constitution for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, dated the 15th April, 1954, whereby the respondent's suit dismissed by the trial Court was decreed. The suit was for a declaration that a certain contract for sale by the appellant to the respondent of a certain plot of land was still subsisting and for an order directing the appellants to execute the necessary conveyance. The learned Judges of this Court, in decreeing that suit, adjusted the form of the relief in manner that instead of making the declaration and the order asked for they directed specific performance of the contract on payment of the necessary additional court-fees. The court-fees having been paid, a final order was passed.

(2.) When the application first came up for hearing on the 27th Aug., 1954, we found that the parties were not in agreement as respects the value of the subject-matter in dispute. Accordingly we sent the case down to the trial court, in order that the value of the property as on the 23rd of Sept., 1946, the date of the institution of the suit and on the 9th of June, 1954 the date of the presentation of the present application, might be ascertained. The, learned subordinate Judge held the enquiry in due course and he has reported to us that the value of the land in dispute on the 23rd of Sept. 1946, was Rs. 28.800 and its value on the 9th June, 1954, was Rs 30,400.

(3.) Mr. Sen Gupta, who appears on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent contends that on the values reported by the learned Subordinate Judge, the subject-matter of the dispute both in the court of first instance and in the proposed appeal must be held to be below the statutory amount of Rs. 20,000. His contention is that the plaintiff's claim was to get the land on payment of the price agreed on in the contract for sale. The only defence of the petitioners was that time was of the essence of the contract and inasmuch as the contract had not been completed in time, it had lapsed. They therefore wanted to keep the land and did not want any money for it. This court held against the petitioners and took the view that the respondent was entitled to get the land on payment of the contract price. Mr. Sen Gupta's contention is that the dispute in the present case is clearly of the nature that the plaintiff-respondent was saying that he was entitled to get the land on payment of Rs. 14,400, while the petitioners were saying that they were not bound to sell the land at all. In view of that nature of the dispute, the value of the subject-matter, Mr. Sen Gupta contended, would be the difference between the actual value of the land and the contract price for which the appellants would be bound to convey the land, if the plaintiff's suit succeeded.