CHANDAN TRIPATHI Vs. NEELIMA PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for grant of decree of specific performance on the pleadings, inter alia, that the defendant had entered into an agreement of sale on 26.03.2010 (Ex.P/1) with the plaintiff for sale of 2 parcels of land, one situated in Kh. No.725/15 admeasuring 2028 sq.ft. and the other situated in adjoining Khasra. No.725/13 admeasuring 1934 sq.ft. An advance of Rs.5,00,000/- was also paid to the defendant and it was clearly agreed to between the parties that whatever actual extent of land is found on the spot, in possession of the defendant, would be sold by defendant to the plaintiff @ 900 per sq.ft. Further case of the plaintiff was that under the agreement, it was implicit that the defendant would get demarcation of the land done and thereafter, he will inform the plaintiff but this was not done and later on, when despite notice given to the defendant for execution of sale deed by receiving balance amount of consideration, followed by notice requiring the defendant to remain present in the office of Registrar on 23.03.2013, sale deed was not executed, the plaintiff was required to file suit.

(3.) The respondent/defendant, though, did not dispute execution of agreement dated 26.03.2010, the defence of the respondent was that though under the said agreement, one part of the land was sold to the third party at the request of the plaintiff, in respect of the other part of the land (subject land), the plaintiff did not approach the defendant nor took any initiative to get the sale deed executed. According to the defendant, it was defendant, who was making repeated efforts requiring the plaintiff to execute sale deed by paying balance of the sale consideration but despite that, the plaintiff did not do, therefore, in these circumstances, the plaintiff's suit was liable to be dismissed.