PRABHULAL MOTILAL Vs. CHANDRAKANT AMRATLAL DOSHI
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
CHANDRAKANT AMRATLAL DOSHI
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This is a Revision Application brought to this Court by the original plaintiffs of the Special Civil Suit no. 80 of 1977 pending in the Court of the Civil judge (S. D.) at Jamnagar who was pleased to reject their application Ex. 25 given for the amendment of the plaint.
(2.)The plaintiffs had filed the aforesaid suit in June 1977 for realising Rs. 30 0 being the amount of earnest money given by the plaintiffs to the defendant in a contract of sale dated 21-5-1975. The defendant had on that day entered into a contract to sell a parcel of land with some structures on some part thereof for the sum of Rs. 1 0 0 As per the agreement the plaintiffs were to take the sale deed from the defendant by 20/11/1974 It was the say of the plaintiffs that though they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract the performance could not be had because of the intervention of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and because of the permission to sell having been not obtained by the plaintiffs. Ultimately the plaintiffs gave notice to the defendant on 5-11-76 terminating the contract and calling upon the defendant to return the amount of Rs. 30 0 In paragraph 5 of the plaint it is the say of the plaintiffs that the defendant had also agreed to return this money but in fact did not pay anything towards that amount and hence they filed the suit for realising Rs. 30 0 with 12% running interest from the date of the suit till realisation.
(3.)The defendant filed the written statement and complained that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and despite the time being extended upto 30/06/1975 the plaintiffs could not make provision for the moneys; that in the meantime the defendant had sold some plots to the plaintiff no. 3 and others as per the say of the plaintiffs and that it was the plaintiffs who could not arrange for the money and therefore the contract could not be performed It was alleged that the Urban Land Ceiling Act came into force only in the year 1976 but the contract had come to an end because of the inability of the plaintiffs to make provision for the remainder of the consideration even by 30/06/1975 or soon thereafter. The defendant also admitted that the contract stood terminated; but according to the defendant he was not liable to return the amount of consideration which stood forfeited to the defendant and that the plaintiffs were liable to compensate the defendant for the loss occasioned to him. In other words the suit was hotly contested.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.