NITIN ARORA Vs. YASHODA NAND SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE order dated 31st March 2011, the plaintiff undertook to deposit the balance amount of Rs.3.75 Crore by way of an FDR or furnish a bank guarantee in the name of the Registrar General of this Court within two weeks. VIDE order dated 30th May 2011, the time to furnish the bank guarantee was extended till 5th July 2011. In terms of the aforesaid orders, the plaintiff furnished bank guarantee of Rs.3 Crore. A cheque of Rs.75 Lacs was tendered for the balance amount of Rs.75 Lacs. The cheque, however, was returned by the Registry which wanted either FDR or bank guarantee. The plaintiff has accordingly filed bank guarantee for the balance amount of Rs.75 Lacs as well on 25th August 2011. The time to file the bank guarantees in terms of the order dated 31st March 2011 is extended till the time the bank guarantee was actually filed. The application stands disposed of. CS(OS) 2528/2008 & IA 14318/2009 (u/O 12 R 6 CPC) 1. This is a suit for specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 8th January 2006 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. VIDE aforesaid agreement, the defendants agreed to sell property No.K-1, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi measuring 774.44 Sq. Yds. along with entire constructions on it, to the plaintiff, for a consideration of Rs.4,25,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crore Twenty Five Lacs). The plaintiff made payment of Rs.50 Lacs to the defendants, Rs.25 Lacs by cheque and Rs.25 Lacs in cash. The balance payment was to be made at the time of handing over the complete vacant physical possession to the plaintiff and execution of proper Sale Deed or other requisite document for conveying/transferring the property in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee. It was also stipulated in the agreement that if the vendee fails to execute the Sale Deed within 30 days after getting the letter of mutation and freehold from L&DO to the vendor, the earnest money shall stand forfeited. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendants have turned dishonest, were demanding Rs.50Lacs over and above the agreed sale consideration and have failed to complete the transaction despite legal notice dated 23rd October 2007. The plaintiff has accordingly sought specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 8th January 2006.

(2.) THE defendants have failed written statement contesting the suit. THE execution of the agreement has not been disputed in the written statement. It is also alleged that there was no question of the conversion of the property into freehold since the property was purchased on the basis of a Sale Deed. As regards mutation, it is alleged that it is not in the hand of the defendants and it is prerogative of the government/department concerned. It has been admitted that the plaintiff was to pay the balance amount at the time of execution of the Sale Deed. According to the defendants though they approached L&DO for mutation, that could not be done since the files were not available with the department.

(3.) IT would thus be seen that as per the agreement between the parties, the balance sale consideration of Rs.3.75 Crore was to be paid to them only at the time of the defendants executing the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff and handing over possession of the property subject matter of the agreement, to him. The plaintiff was under obligation to obtain execution/registration of the Sale Deed within 30 days of the defendants obtaining mutation and conversion of the property from lease hold to freehold.