of Rs.15,00,000/- on 25.12.2009. Therefore, these two conditions were fulfilled by the plaintiff. Now, the dispute is raised in respect of clause No.9. As reproduced, the meaning of clause No.9 would be that the defendant No.1, who was giving the document in writing as “ fygwu ns.kkj ” would clear the loan prior to the sale deed and would give NOC to “ fygwu ?ks.kkj ” i.e. the plaintiff. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that it was the duty of the plaintiff to repay the loan amount raised by defendant No.1 within a period of four months from the date of agreement and then get the sale deed executed. If that intention would have been of the parties, then it could have been specifically stated while bifurcating the amount of consideration or it could have been specifically written that the consideration which was fixed by them to Rs.38,51,000/- is apart from the loan, which was then outstanding (by specifying it). When the intention of the parties was not to make that outstanding amount as part of consideration, the performance of the same cannot be expected from the plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any kind of breach of terms of conditions by the plaintiff.
