- (1.) Challenge in these appeals by special leave is to the decision of the High court which had, while setting aside the judgments of the trial court and the lower appellate court, dismissed the appellant' s suit for specific performance.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are: That on 25/11/1961 the parties in these appeals had entered into an agreement. By virtue of that agreement the appellant had agreed to take on lease for a period of 99 years a parcel of land which, at that time, was not in the possession of the respondent owners. The said land was in possession of the municipality and the agreement postulated that the municipality would be vacating the promises and would remove the post-mortem house and thereupon the plot of land would be given on 99 years' lease to the appellant. The agreement further stated that at the time when the possession of the plot 17 is handed over a balance sum of Rs 2,500. 00 would be paid as advance rent for 50 years, Rs 1,000. 00 having already been received on the date of the signing of the agreement by the representative of the owner, and a formal lease deed would be executed and registered in the presence of the Sub-Registrar.
(3.) It is on 31/1/1964 that the town municipality vacated the premises by removing the post-mortem house. It appears that the said municipality had constructed another post-mortem house to meet the requirements. The respondents took possession of the land in question on 1/2/1964. It is thereafter that an agreement was entered into on 16/3/1964 between the owner Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 whereby the same plot of land was sought to be given on lease to Respondent 2.;