- (1.)This Appeal is directed against the concurrent Judgments and Decrees dated 1552013 and 17122014 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, decreeing Special Civil Suit No. 312004A for specific performance of an Agreement for sale dated 10122003, instituted by Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff).
(2.)This Second Appeal was admitted by an order dtd. 25/3/2015 on the following substantial questions of law (i) Whether the courts below failed to appreciate that Clause
(1) of the Agreement dtd. 10/12/2003 of which the Plaintiff sought specific performance, itself provided in clear terms that the entire considerationsale price agreed to therein, was required to be paid within a period of 3 months thereof, or a further period of 1 month, along with 12 % interest thereon, the said agreement would stand terminated, as would Respondent No.1's entitlements thereunder, with forfeiture of an amount of ? 30,000- to the Appellant No.1, and return of the balance any amounts paid by the Respondent No.1 to the Appellant No.1 free from interest, and as such time was indeed the essence of the contract

(ii) Whether the courts below erred in directing the Appellants to complete the mutation in respect of the record of rights of the property which is the subject matter of the said agreement, when no such relief was claimed by Respondent No.1, more so when the same would be the subject matter of a proceeding before a quasi-judicial authority, and the disposal thereof is not in the hands of the Appellants

(3.)Later, an order dtd. 9/4/2021 formulated the following additional substantial question of law. Whether, (assuming the Respondent was entitled to a decree directing the Appellants to execute a sale deed in his favour, as claimed by him), in view of the fact that in Clause (1) of the Agreement of Sale dated 10122003, provided for interest of 12% p.a. to be paid on any delayed payment of the consideration thereunder, the Trial Court erred in directing interest to be paid at 6% p.a., i.e. half the agreed contractual rate, and the Appellate Court erred in upholding the same