KAMAL KUMAR Vs. AMRITA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of the present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.7.2001 whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for specific performance or in the alternative for a money decree of Rs.1,55,000/- was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff claimed to have entered into an agreement on 5.1.1984 with late Brig. Hari Pal Singh who was an allottee of flat No.122, S.F.S., DDA, East of Kailash, New Delhi for purchase of the allotment rights from the said Brig. Hari Pal Singh for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,05,000/-. It was the case of the appellant/plaintiff that a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid on 5.1.1984 and subsequently four amounts were paid in cash of Rs.20,000/- on 16.1.1984, Rs.40,000/- on 16.2.1984, Rs.20,000/- on 12.3.1984 and Rs.20,000/- on 29.6.1984. Brig. Hari Pal Singh expired on 17.9.1984 leaving behind the defendants/ respondents as his legal heirs. THE appellant/plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 17.3.1987 to the respondents for specific performance and on failure of the defendants/respondents to sell the said flat, the subject suit came to be filed. THE respondents/defendants contested the suit, however, after the case was transferred from the original side of this Court to the District Court, the defendants failed to appear and were proceeded exparte. THE plaintiff led evidence by way of an affidavit. THE trial Court has disbelieved the case of the appellant/plaintiff and dismissed the suit.

(3.) I may note that specific performance is a discretionary relief. Even if there is proved that a contract was entered into between the parties, the facts of the case must justify the grant of relief of specific performance. Relief of specific performance is ordinarily not granted on the basis of doubtful documentation, especially when they are mere slips of paper which do not even contain the complete names of the buyers. Payment in cash is also frowned upon by the Courts, especially, when the transaction is not between illiterate persons or in a village and is between literate persons.