TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (12) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment). He undertook to have the sale deed registered within six months i.e. on/or before February 23, 1973.Time is, thereby, the essence of the agreement. The appellant had taken possession of the land and levelled the land and applied for permission for sanction of layout. The Gram Panchayat, Bhavani, refused to grant sanction. Thereafter, the appellant got issued a notice on February 20, 1973, calling upon the respondents to return the earnest money of Rs. 50,000/and also Rs. 15,000/said to be the expenditure incurred by them towards development which liability was denied by the respondents in their reply notice wherein they also claimed to have forfeited the earnest money for default committed by the appellant in the performance of their....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in allowing the appeal. We find no force in both contentions. 3. The facts of the case and the conduct of the appellant lead us to conclude that the appellant is not justified in seeking to nor is he entitled to recover from the appellants Rs. 50,000/paid by him. No doubt in the agreement it was stated that the amount was advance and not earnest money. Earnest money is a part of the purchase price. The nomenclature or label given in the agreement as advance is not either decisive or immutable. The appellant, after he had entered into the agreement, admittedly, had taken possession of the land and levelled the land for the purpose of making it into plots for sale to the third parties, in terms of the agreement. Admittedly, the appellant fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In this case, admittedly, during the pendency of the suit, the third respondent-minor after becoming the major on July 31, 1975, was duly declared as major and the mother was discharged from guardianship. Thereafter he filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 2, his brothers. In their written statement and also in the reply notice got issued by them, respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 expressly averred and was testified in the evidence of the first defendant that they are "ready and willing to perform their part of the contract". When the minor became major, he had adopted their written statement, it would certainly mean, as rightly pointed out by the High Court, that the minor was also willing to perform his part ....