TMI Blog1961 (9) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1950 some time in 1955 or 1956. In October 1951, tenders were invited on behalf of the receiver for permanent settlement of certain areas of land and sale of trees standing thereon. The tender of Narmadeshwar Prasad Singh, plaintiff of money suit No. 1 of 1955, was accepted in respect of one piece of land and that of Baneshwar Prasad Singh plaintiff of money suit No. 2 of 1955, was accepted in respect of another piece of land; and accordingly these two plaintiffs deposited certain amounts in the then Imperial Bank of India, Patna to the credit of the Official Receiver. But, as documents of settlement were not executed by the Official Receiver for about three years, the plaintiffs treated the contracts as having been revoked and cancelled and demanded the refund of the amounts deposited from the receiver. After some correspondence the receiver sent drafts of leases to the plaintiffs on the 6th July 1954 for their approval. But the plaintiffs considered the terms of the drafts to be inconsistent with the terms of the notice in response to which they had submitted their tenders and instituted these two suits for recovery of the amounts deposited with damages in the shape of interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the drafts of the settlement sent to the plaintiffs were in accordance with the terms agreed upon; and the plaintiffs had no right to treat the contracts as having been revoked or cancelled. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge found that there was no time limit fixed for the performance of the contract; but the appellant failed to perform the same within a reasonable time, as required by Section 46 of the Indian Contract Act. He accepted the case Of the plaintiff of money suit No. 1 that the appellant's servants had cut and removed three mango trees and some branches of some trees from the land of khata No. 3 and the case of the plaintiff of money suit No. 2 that Ramcharitra Misra was in possession of a portion of the land of khata No. 54, which fact had been kept concealed from the plaintiff. He also found that the terms of the contracts were materially changed in the drafts sent by the appellants to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the learned Subordinate Judge found that the contracts entered into between the parties stood cancelled and rescinded by these acts of the appellant as also by the unreasonable delay made by the appellant in performing the contracts; and, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the receipts it is stated that no possession will be given without sanction of the court and if it is not sanctioned the amount will be refunded without interest . It is admitted by the parties that settlement of the land or sale of the trees could not be finalised without the sanction of the Calcutta High Court. It is further admitted that subsequent to the grant of these receipts these amounts were deposited by the plaintiffs, under the direction of A.C. Guha and P.C. Banerji, in the then Imperial Bank at Patna to the credit of the Official Receiver on the 29th October 1951. It is also admitted that the Official Receiver made an application to the Calcutta High Court, for the first time, on the 12th April 1954 for the required sanction and sanction was accorded on the same date, though the formal order of sanction was drawn up on the 2nd December 1954. It is obvious, therefore, that unless the appellant can justify the delay of about 2 1/2 years in making the application for sanction it cannot be said that there was no unreasonable delay on the part of the appellant to perform the contracts. The appellant has, however, offered some explanation as to the delay and filed cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the stamp papers which would be required to execute the sale deed, nor did he call upon the other party, that is, the defendant, to execute the document. On the other hand, the defendant sent several notices to the plaintiff asking him to pay the money for stamp papers, so that she might execute the sale deed. It was thus established that the plaintiff sat quiet for about three years before instituting the suit. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. After referring to the provision of Section 46 Of the contract Act, according to which a contract is to be performed within a reasonable time, the Nagpur High Court observed : ''So if there is unnecessary delay on the part of one party it should be open to the other party to put an end to the contract, and that is the law which, however, requires the other patty to give him notice before he terminates it''. In making this observation, their Lordships of the Nagpur High Court seem to have relied on an observation of the Privy Council in the case of Jamshed Khodaram Irani ILR 40 Bom 289: (AIR 1915 PC 83) which reads thus.: But equity will not assist where there has been undue delay on the part of one party to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce in law between a contract, where the time is fixed by the act of the parties and a contract where no time is fixed and by implication of the law, the contract is to be performed within a reasonable time . With these observations, I respectfully agree. In Binda Prasad v. Kishori Saran AIR 1929 PC 195 the time for performance of the contract was not specifically fixed; and the Privy Council said that, in the absence of any specified time, it would be the duty of the parties to complete the contract within a reasonable time. 11. In view of the foregoing discussions, the contention of the appellant falls and the plaintiffs-respondents were justified in treating the contracts as having been revoked and rescinded, without giving prior notice to the Official Receiver. 12. The learned advocate for the appellant also challenged the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge that the terms in the draft leases submitted to the plaintiffs were different from the terms agreed upon earlier. (After discussing the evidence, His Lordship concluded:) The conclusion, therefore, is that the contract became void and unenforceable because of the variation in the terms, uncertainty and want of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GO. Ltd. AIR 1938 PC 67 was referred to and distinguished. In Sheonarain Prasad Singh v. Ganga Prasad Sahu AIR 1940 Pat 155 One Prasad Sahu assigned a mortgage decree to the defendants of the suit for Rs. 5,000 out of which he left Rs. 1,700 with them to be paid to the plaintiffs, who were creditors of Prasad Sahu. The defendants did not however, pay this amount and thereupon the plaintiffs sued for recovery of Rs. 1,700 besides interest by way of damages from the defendants. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that in the absence of an agreement, express or implied, interest On money wrongfully detained was not recoverable. Harries, C. J. repelled this argument with this observation: If this was a claim for money, wrongfully detained, there can be no doubt that interest could not be recovered, but if the suit is to be regarded as a suit for compensation, then the plaintiffs are entitled to such an amount as would compensate them for the loss which they have suffered by reason of the defendants' breach of contract''. And it was held that the plaintiffs were entitled to get a decree for interest by way of damages. 15. The facts of the present case cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
