MAJOR GEN. DARSHAN SINGH Vs. BRIJ BHUSHAN CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTUAL ASPECTS : This appeal takes an exception to the judgment of the High Court in the second appeal preferred by the appellants. Appellant no.1 was the first plaintiff, and appellant no. 1(ii), (iii) and (iv), as well as appellant no. 2 were the co-plaintiffs. The original first respondent was the defendant in the suit. For convenience, we are referring to the parties with reference to their status before the Trial Court.

(2.) The defendant (Brij Bhushan Chaudhary) executed an agreement for sale dtd. 16/1/1980 (for short, 'the suit agreement') in favour of plaintiff no.1 (Major General (retd) Darshan Singh) in respect of plot of land admeasuring approximately 2438 sq. yards with structure thereon being residential House no.33, R.P. No. 2829, Sector 2-A, Chandigarh (for short, 'the suit property'). The agreed consideration was Rs.3,50,000.00. A sum of Rs.30,000.00 was paid by the plaintiff no. 1 to the defendant by way of earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 30/4/1980. Clause no.3 in the suit agreement provided that in the event of the failure of the defendant to honour the agreement, his liability will be to refund the sum of Rs.30,000.00 along with damages of Rs.10,000.00 without any interest. The clause further provided that plaintiff no.1 will have no right to claim any other damages or to file a suit for specific performance.

(3.) According to the case of plaintiff no.1, there were further negotiations after the execution of the suit agreement, and it was agreed to reduce the price to Rs.2,90,000.00. Consequently, a draft sale deed was executed between plaintiff no.1 and the defendant on 18/3/1980. We may note here that along with plaintiff no.1, his daughters Raman, Pawan and Narveen were co-plaintiffs. All of them were signatories to the draft sale deed. According to the plaintiffs' case, necessary sale permission under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was granted on 11/8/1980. The plaintiffs claimed that on the date of execution of the draft sale deed, they were put in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs purchased stamp papers worth Rs.23,200.00 on 19/7/1980, as desired by the defendant. According to the plaintiffs' case, the defendant changed his mind as there was a price rise of the properties in the vicinity of the suit property. Therefore, a telegraphic notice was issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant on 26/8/1980, calling upon him to remain present in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Chandigarh on 29/8/1980 between 10 am and 4 pm for registration of the sale deed. The case of the plaintiffs is that notwithstanding the service of the said notice, the defendant neither replied nor remained present before the Sub-Registrar for registration of the sale deed. Therefore, a suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiffs. In the alternative, the plaintiffs claimed relief of damages of Rs.40,000.00.