RAVINDER SINGH Vs. CHUCKLES KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for rejection of plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action.

(2.) This is a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 23rd December, 2005, executed by the defendants, in favour of the plaintiffs, for sale of their undivided share in plot No.15, Block No.172, Jor Bagh, New Delhi. It is alleged in the plaint that vide agreement dated 23rd December, 2005, the defendants agreed to sell their undivided one-third share in the aforesaid property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs 3,87,50,000/-. It is alleged that the plaintiff issued a cheque of Rs 21 lacs to the defendants, which was later replaced by a cheque of Rs 25 lacs. Initially, the date for making final payment was fixed as 09th January, 2006, but later defendant No.1, acting for himself as well as on behalf of defendant Nos. 2 to 4, agreed to extend the date and also received a sum of Rs 25 lacs from the plaintiff. It is also alleged that despite receiving Rs 25 lacs from the plaintiff, the defendants have been delaying fulfillment of their contractual obligations and have not come forward to complete the transactions. The plaintiff also claims to have sent one letter dated 02nd August, 2006 and another letter dated 07th May, 2007 to the defendants, asking them to do the needful in this regard. This was followed by yet another letter dated 04th April, 2008.

(3.) In the application under consideration, the defendants have alleged that since the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 23rd December, 2005, contemplated execution of a proper agreement by 10th January, 2006 and no such proper agreement was executed between the parties, the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the plaintiff himself committed breach of the MoU dated 23rd December, 2005 and abandoned the same. It is also alleged that the receipt dated 23rd February, 2006 and the letter dated 09th January, 2006, extending the MoU are forged and fabricated documents. It is also stated in the reply that the cheque dated 23rd December, 2005, issued by the plaintiff for Rs 11 lacs, was dishonoured when presented to the bank and the schedule of payment stipulated in the MoU dated 23rd December, 2005, was never adhered to by the plaintiff. It has, however, been admitted that the plaintiff made two payments to the defendants; one for Rs 21 lacs by demand draft and other of Rs 14 lacs vide cheque dated 23rd February, 2006. It is also claimed that the sale consideration was agreed at Rs 3,87,50,000/- and the earnest money on the aforesaid amount came to Rs 38,70,000/-, which was never paid by the plaintiff.