Supreme Court decision: Appeal partially allowed on money decree, interest awarded on loan amount

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the specific performance claim but allowed the appeal in part regarding the money decree. The Court held that the plaintiff could claim relief based on the alternative case admitted by the defendants, even if not pleaded in the plaint. Interest was awarded on the loan amount from a specified date. The Court disagreed with the defendants' contention on interest and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting interest on the loan amount. The appeal was allowed in part, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues:
- Specific performance of a contract to sell a house in Gaya
- Dispute over contract between plaintiff and second party defendants
- Allegation of breach of contract by second party defendants
- Claim of bona fide purchase for value by first party defendants
- Money decree against second party defendants

Analysis:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell a house in Gaya, alleging that the second party defendants agreed to sell the house to the plaintiff but later sold it to the first party defendants. The plaintiff claimed that a contract was entered into, consideration paid, and possession of the house transferred in part performance of the contract. However, both sets of defendants contested the suit, denying the existence of a contract and asserting that the payment made was a loan, not part of a sale agreement. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the claim for specific performance, concluding that no contract was proven, and the payment was a loan. A money decree was granted against the second party defendants for the loan amount.

The High Court upheld the Subordinate Judge's decision, emphasizing the absence of a concluded contract and the loan nature of the payment. The High Court also noted that even if a contract existed, its terms were vague, and one of the vendors being a minor precluded specific performance. The High Court set aside the money decree, stating it was not claimed in the plaint. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the findings and the reversal of the money decree.

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the specific performance claim but allowed the appeal in part regarding the money decree. The Court held that the plaintiff could claim relief based on the alternative case admitted by the defendants, even if not pleaded in the plaint. Interest was awarded on the loan amount from a specified date. The Court disagreed with the defendants' contention on interest and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting interest on the loan amount. The appeal was allowed in part, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.

---