INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTORS LTD. versus PRASANTA KUMAR SUR.

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 579 · Decided: 25-01-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS. 
579 
INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTORS LTD. 
v. 
PRASANTA KUMAR SUR. 
(J. L. KAPUR and J. C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Sale-Repudiation of contract by vendor---,Suit for specific 
performance, if lies without formal tender of purchase money. 
The appellant purchased the property in dispute from the 
respondent but soon thereafter there was an agreement for recon-
veyance of the property to the respondent within a period of two 
years for almost the same value for which it was sold. The 
relevant clause of this agreement was as follows:-
"Clause 3-The purchase shall be completed by the pur-
chasers within two years, i.e., to say on or be lure the roth day of 
February, 1943, time being the essence of the contract. If the 
purchasers shall on or before the IOth day of February, 1943, pay 
to the vendor a sum of Rs. 10,001 the vendor shall at the cost 
of the purchasers execute such conveyance as may be necessary 
for conveying and transferring its right, title and interest in the 
said property free from encumbrances, if any, created by it." 
Before the expiry of the stipulated period the respondent en-
tered into correspondence with the appellant asking for the com-
pletion of the agreed reconveyance and irttimatingthatthe purchase 
money was ready to be paid; but after some correspondence the 
appellant's solicitors totally repudiated the agreement for recon-
veyance. The respondent did not then tender the price agreed 
to be paid and filed a suit for specific performance which was dis-
missed by the trial court on the ground that the respondent had 
not paid the money. The High Court decreed the suit. 
Held, that as the appellant had totally repudiated the con-
tract for reconveyance and had failed to perform his part of the 
contract it was open to the respondent to sue for its enforcement 
and the High Court was right in holding that the respondent was 
entitled to a decree for specific performance. 
In a case of total repudiation ot"the agreement for sale it 
was useless to make a formal tender of the purchase money. 
Hunter v. Daniel (1845) 4 Hare 420, andChalikani v. Zamindar 
of Tuni and Others (1922) L.R. 50 I.A. 41, followed . . 
Ismail Bhai Rahim v. Adam Osman I:L.R. [1938) 2 Cal. 337, 
distinguished 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil 
Appeal 
No. 205of1956. 
Appeal from the judgment a.nd decree dated 
May 26, 1954, of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal 
from Original Decree No. 127 of 1950. 
· 
1961 
January 25. 
· .. 5SO' .. -
',...... 
> 
..... -
SUPRE~IE COURT REPORTS -
[1961] 
\" 
'·' . 
-. -. 
~ 
·. \ 
' 
'. 
. 
'9~' 
· -n. N. Mukherjee, for the a.ppella.nts •. · .... 
Jnter•atio•al '\ . N. C. · ChlJtterjee a.nd R. R. Biswas, for respondents 
Confra<tors Ltd. 'Nos. l(a.) a.nd 2. 
· • • 
v. ' 
-
\ 
p,., •• ,. Kumar 
1961. Ja.nua.ry 25. The_Judg!llent of the Court was 
Kapur]. 
delivered by , 
__ 
. _ 
- KAl'UR, J.-This is a.n a.ppea.l a.ga.inst the i"udgment 
·and decree of the High Court of Judicature a.t Calcutta.. 
The a.ppella.nt wa.s the defendant in· the suit out of 
which this a.ppe~l has a.risen a.nd respondent No: I was 
-the plaintiff,· a.nd the second· respondent wa.s a. pro-
forma. defendant. · The facts 'of this ca.se a.re these: 
On Febrria.ry' 4, 1941, the·_ respondent sold the pro. 
· perty in dispute to the appellant for a. sum o_f_J;!.s •. 10,000. 
__ j 
On February IO, 1941, there-. was a.n a.greement'·:J0r, '" _; 
reconveya.nce wi~hin a. period up to February .10; ,;:· · -· ·. 
1943, for a. sum of Rs; 10,001. The relevant clause 
of this agreement was the third clause which was a.s 
follows:-
-
· - . 
-
- -
" Clausi 3.-The purchase sha.11 be completed by 
the purchasers within two ye_ars, i.e., to say on or· 
before the 10th da.y of February, 1943, time being 
the essence of the contra.ct; If the purchasers sha.11 
on or before the 10th da.y of Februa.ry, 1943, pa.y to . 
the vendor a sum of Rs. 10,001 the vendor sha.11 a.t · 
the cost of the purchasers execute such conveyance 
a.s ma.y be.necessary for conveying a.nd transferring 
its right, title a.nd interest in the sa.id property free 
from encum'bra.nces, if a.ny, created by it." · 
On November 26, 1942, the solicit<Jt"for respondent 
-- No. 1 wrote a. letter to the a.ppella.nt s.tating that that 
_respondent wa.s rea.dy. a.nd willing to ha.ve the pur. _ 
chase, completed_ a.s early as. possible on payment of 
__ -Rs. IQ;OOl •. Along with that letter a draft conveyance 
was sent for- a.ppto'val but a.II this was·
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.