S K BAGGA Vs. KASTURI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff filed this suit, inter alia, alleging that defendant is alessee of the land measuring 100 sq. yds., bearing No. 8A/1 situted atJheel Kuranja,Geeta Colony. He is also the owner of superstruture built over the said landcomprising of two rooms, one store, kitchen, bath, latrine, stairs and courtyard. Thedefendant who is in possession of said property, agreed to sell it to plaintiff for a sumof Rs. 4,50,000.00 under an agreement of sale dated 24/08/1986. Out of theagreed sale consideration, defendant received Rs. 25,000.00 at the time of executionof said agreement of sale and the balance amount was to be received by him ondelivering the vacant possession of the property uptil 10/12/1986.Defendant was to obtain sale permission from L&DO, Nirman Bhavan and toexecute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee within the said period. Itis further alleged that an additional amount of Rs. 25,000.00 was paid to the defenanton 4/09/1986 and a"i endorsement regarding that payment was made onthe reverse side of said agreement of sale. After having agreed to sell the saidproperty, the defendant has been on the look out for alternate property for hisresidence. Having failed to arange alternate property, the defendant asked theplaintiff for extension of time and with mutual consent the time to execute the saledeed etc. was extended upto 15/01/1987 and an endorsement to that effectwas made again on the reverse side of the said agreement of sale on 8/12/1986. It is pleaded that before the expiry of extended period at the request ofdefendant, time was further extended upto 15/04/1987 vide another agreementdated 14/01/1987 which was executed in continuation of said agreement ofsale dated 24/08/1986.

(2.) It is also alleged that the plaintiff has been and is still ready and willing toperform his part of the obligations under the said two agreements. However, inspiteof number of requests made by the plantiff himself and also through the propertydealer, the defendant has failed to perform his part of the obligations under the saidagreements. He has even failed to take steps to get the permission renewed or timeextended by L&DO for sale of the said property to the plaintiff. It is stated that if thedefendant is unwilling to perform the obligations under the said agreements anddeliver vacant possession of the said property to the plaintiff, he is willing to receivecompensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs in addition to the refund of the amounts paidfrom the defendant. Plaintiff even sent a legal notice dated 4/04/1987 to thedefendant and as is evident from the reply dated 13/04/1987 sent by thedefendant, the latter has backed out of the transaction. It was prayed that a decreefor specific performance of the agreements dated 24/07/1986 and 14/01/1987 may be passed against the defendant and the plaintiff be put into possessionof said property No. 8A/1, Jheel Kuranja, Geeta Colony. In the alternative, a decreefor Rs. 4,50,000.00 be passed against the defendant.

(3.) Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. It is admitted thatdefendant is the owner of property No 8A/1, Jheel Kuranja and he agreed to sell itunder an agreement of sale dated 24/08/1986 to the plaintiff. It is furtheradmitted that the balance amount of Rs. 4,25,000.00 was to be paid by the plaintiffuptil 10/12/1986 and the defendant was to execute the sale deed in favourof plaintiff after obtaining sale permission from L&DO upto the said date. It isalleged that the defendant had applied for sale permission and the L&DO communicated that permission by the letter dated 21/10/1986 which was valid for90 days from the date of issue. Plaintiff was duly informed about the grant of salepermission but the sale transaction could not be completed as the plaintiff was shortof money. Receipt of additional amount of Rs. 25,000.00 on 4/09/1986 andmaking of endorsement regarding that payment on the back of said agreement ofsale is not denied. It is alleged that it was at the request of plaintiff the defendantagreed to extend the time under another agreement dated 14/01/1987 upto 15/02/1987. It appears that in that agreement the numerical figure of '2' hasbeen replaced by '4' unauthorisedly by the plaintiff. It is pleaded that the defendanthad entered into an agreement dated 25/08/1986 with B.L. Ahuja forpurchase of property No. H-149 situated at Old Gupta Colony for Rs. 4,62,500.00which transaction was to be completed on or by 10/12/1986. Defendantalso paid a total sum of Rs. 55,000.00 towards earnest money and part payment tosaid B.L. Ahuja. Due to non-finalisation of sale transaction of the suit propertywithin the stipulated period by the plaintiff, the defendant was unable to purchasethe said property from B.L. Ahuja and had to incur loss to the extent of Rs.35,000.00 which Shri Ahuja refused to return out of the total payment of Rs.55,000.00 made to him. Receipt of the plaintiff's notice dated 4/04/1987 isadmitted. It is stated that reply thereto dated 13/04/1987 was sent by thedefendant through Counsel. It is asserted that the plaintiff was unable to arrange thebalance amount of Rs. 4 lacs upto the extended date of 15/02/1987. Plaintiffhad assured the defendant that he would be able to arrange the balance amountbefore the expiry of sale permission which he could not do. The amounts paid bythe plaintiff stand forfeited because of the breach of conditions of the said agreements. It is denied that the plaintiff is entitled to claim any compensation from thedefendant. It is alleged that the suit property is the only property owned by thedefendant in Delhi wherein he is living with his family. It is emphatically deniedthat the plaintiff is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the suit.