BEG RAJ KHATANA Vs. RAJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.

(2.) Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff is that he had entered into an agreement to purchase the property bearing No. 1751/129, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi-110035 on 12.12.2007 from its owner the defendant. It is claimed by the plaintiff that in terms of the said agreement the total amount of consideration payable by the plaintiff to the defendant was Rs. 36,40,000/- out of which an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid to the defendant by way of cash at the time of signing of the agreement. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement the balance amount of Rs. 32,40,000/- was to be paid on 10th April, 2008. That is the date, which was allegedly fixed between the parties for the purpose of execution of the sale deed. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that in pursuance to the said agreement he had got the drafts of the requisite balance amount of Rs. 32,40,000/- prepared from the bank on 8.4.2008 and also purchased the stamp paper worth Rs. 2,18,400/- on which the agreement was to be drawn. The plaintiff states that he had also sent a notice dated 24.03.2008 well in advance, to the defendant expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract as he had got inkling that the defendant was trying to back out from the agreement. The defendant did not come forward and consequently the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit for specific performance in which the application for interim injunction has been filed.

(3.) The defendant has filed written statement and the reply to the application. She has taken the plea that the facts which have been presented by the plaintiff are not correct. It has been stated by the defendant that as a matter of fact the plaintiff, who is resident of the same locality, had approached the defendant for purchase of the aforesaid house which is measuring approximately 98 sq. mts., comprising of ground floor, first floor and the second floor. It is alleged that on 9.12.2007 the plaintiff gave a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as an earnest money and the plaintiff further stated that he would reduce the terms and conditions agreed into an agreement although a receipt was signed by the defendant. It is stated that in the receipt indicating the payment of earnest money it was specifically mentioned that the defendant's son Deepak would be retaining the first floor of the suit property and the property which was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff (except first floor) for a total consideration of Rs. 36,40,000/-. It is alleged by the defendant that on 12.12.2007 the plaintiff further paid a sum of Rs. 2,35,000/- to the defendant and thus a total payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- was received by the defendant. The plaintiff got an agreement typed in English, which was got signed from the defendant even without permitting her to be read. It is stated that she is an old lady and with a fading eye sight which is bordering blindness, and moreover, she does not know English, therefore, she did not and could not know the contents of the agreement although the signature on the agreement are admitted by her. It is alleged by her that the plaintiff has played fraud by obtaining the signatures of the defendant on the said agreement purported to represent as if the entire property was agreed to be sold by the defendant to the plaintiff while as what was sold by her was only the entire property minus the first floor which she intended to retain for herself. Thus she has resisting the passing of any interim order in favour of the plaintiff as the entire case of the plaintiff is based on concealment of fact and on fraud.