We consider that he was not entitled to claim the ease of a certain performance of the contract after not fulfilling his part of the contract, even if that part is considered a separate part of the sales agreement. ” – Judge Deepak Gupta, Judge Aniruddha Bose. Referring to the evidence recorded, the Bank stated that there was absolutely no evidence that the claimant could, through the means, arrange for the payment of consideration under the referral agreement. It is not possible to answer the simple objection that he is willing to pay the consideration without providing valid information on this justification. It is not necessary for the applicant to provide finished money, but it is imperative to prove in turn that he has the necessary means to obtain the equivalent. – Judges Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement stating that Ponnuswamy Nadar was a real estate agent and speculator and that he was a neighbour of the defendant, and that he was also aware of the contract of sale concluded by defendants 1 and 2 with the 4th defendant on 27.3.1979. Subsequently, the first applicant concluded the contract of sale in his favour, as if the defendants agreed to sell him ownership of the complaint and that, consequently, the contract of 16.7.1980, proposed by the first applicant, to lodge the appeal in favour of a given service, was not a true document, and defendants 1 and 2 concluded, on 27.3.1979, a contract of sale with the defendant 4th party, which was previously and, therefore, the first applicant also cannot assert the right of the contract of sale.
The 4th defendant O.S.Nr. 582 of 1981 in the files of the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, an action for concrete performance of its contract of sale of 27.3.1979, and defendants 1 and 2 brought an advance of Rs 60,000 paid by the fourth defendant in this appeal and in accordance with the purchase agreement of 27.3.1979, and the counter-performance of sale was fixed at 1 point. 75,000/- and ownership has been transferred to the 4th defendant in the partial performance of the contract of sale and the fourth defendant is therefore in absolute possession and enjoyment of the defendant. Since defendants 1 and 2 did not come forward to deal with the residual counter-sale and execute the deed of sale, the 4th defendant sent by registered letter a notice of 11.6.1981 asking defendants 1 and 2 to face the residual counter-performance and to execute the deed of sale. “37. As the prayer requested in the initial application was ascertained, the applicant did not apply for an action for a declaration that the termination of the contract of sale was legally wrong. . . .