VENKATARAMA AYYAR Vs. VENKATA SUBRAHMANIAN
LAWS(PVC)-1900-3-20
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on March 12,1900

VENKATARAMA AYYAR Appellant
VERSUS
VENKATA SUBRAHMANIAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The decree of the Subordinate Judge is right. The questions argued before us for the appellants are--(1) that the suit is barred by Section 43 of the Civil P. C., and (2) that it is barred by limitation.
(2.) The defendant agreed to convey certain property belonging to him and his son to the plaintiff. Disputes having arisen before the conveyance was executed, plaintiff sued for specific performance and got a decree, in pursuance of which the price was fully paid, and a conveyance was executed. Plaintiff not having been given possession, sued for possession. It was then found that the sale did not bind the son's interest in the property, and that though the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the father's share, a division ought not to be effected on the ground of the inconvenience attending the division of the house. Plaintiff was awarded the value of the defendant's share, and the present suit is do recover the balance of the price paid, on the ground of failure of consideration to the extent of the son's share.
(3.) It is contended by the appellant that the suit should be regarded as one for damages for breach of the contract to convey, and that, if so, plaintiff should have sued for the damages as an alternative relief in the suit for specific performance and that Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure is therefore a bar to the present suit. The contract to sell having been specifically enforced no question as to its breach arises, and the suit is really one for recovery of money, consideration for which has failed, as stated above. The cause of action, therefore, in this suit is entirely different from that in the suit for specific performance and Section 43 of the Civil P. C. has no application.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.