LAWS(DLH)-1990-3-5

AMRIT LAL SURI Vs. CAPT C P GUPTA

Decided On March 20, 1990
AMRIT LAL SURI Appellant
V/S
CAPT.C.P.GUPTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against, the judgment of the learned Single Judge daed 4-8-1987 by which the suit of the plaintiff for specific perfor mance was decreed. The facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal, briefly stated are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of House No. B-36, Swami Nagar, New Delhi and for recovery of Rs. 61,297.57 or in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 1,11,297.57, against the appellant/defendant.

(2.) The allegations made in the plaint are that the appellant was at one time member of Delhi Dayalbagh Cooperative House Building Society Limited (hereinafter called the society). The society owned land in Swami Nagar Colony in Chirag Delhi, which land was sold by the Society to different persons for the purpose of construction of houses. The colony was meant for providing residential accommodation to Satsangis i.e. the persons who professed the Radha Swami faith. The appellant purchased one of the plots measuring 499.98 Sq. Yds. bearing No. B-36, in. the said colony from the society by means of sale deed dated 4-12-68. Though the appellant started construction of house but he could not complete it because of paucity of funds. The appellant approached the respondent and told him that he wanted to sell the property for a consideration of Rs. 50,000 The respondent agreed to the proposal put forward by the appellant. The market price of the land at that time was Rs. 50,000 and the cost of construction raised by the appellant was assessed at Rs. 50,000. The respondent paid the said amount of Rs. 50,000 and the appellant delivered possession of the porperty to the respondent on 28-5-1979. Sines then the respondent is in possession of the property, ft was agreed between the parties that as and when full price of the property was paid to the appellant he would resign and withdraw from the membership of the society. The respondent was advised to apply for the membership of the society. It was further alleged that though there was no legal bar to the appellant transferring his right in the said property, However the respondent agreed to that course out of sentimental consideration. The respondent paid the Entire amount of Rs. 50,000 to the appellant but the appellant gave a writing to the effect that he had received the amount of Rs. 50,000 by way of interest free loan. On that very date the appellant wrote to the society that his membership be cancelled and his share be transferred to the respondent. A sum of Rs. 5.000 was paid to the society towards the charges for transferring the land in favour of the respondent. The respodent also paid a sum of Rs. 100 to the society on 28-5-1979 as membership fee and also submitted a form prescribed for enrolment as member of the society. After entering into the agreement for the purchase or the property the respondent paid charges towards water bills etc. The appellant. by letter dated 11-3-1980 wrote to the society withdrawing his request for cancelling his membership from the society and transferring his share in favour of the respondent. It was alleged in the letter that the appellant was withdrawing the offer because of disturbed family circumstances and he was pot in a normal state of mind and had taken hasty decision under duress and that now he would like to constract his own house in the very near future. In these circumstances the plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance.

(3.) The appellant contested the suit inter alia on the pleas that the suit had not been properly volued for the purposes of court fee; the suit. was bad for n.non-joinder of the parties; there was no binding and concluded contract for the sale of the property in dispute end the appellant had received a sum of Rs. 50,000 as interest free loan from the respondent and the alleged agreement was without consideration: the possession of the property was never given to the respondent and the respondent had never been ready and willing to his part of the agreement.