RAKESH CHANDER GUPTA Vs. RAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.5.1998 of the Trial court whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff was decreed for the alternative relief of recovery of damages instead of grant of specific performance.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent no. 1 entered into an agreement to sell dated 7th December, 1988 with the appellant/plaintiff for sale of 4 bighas and 16 biswas falling in Khasra no. 507, Village Neb Sarai, Tehsil- Mehrauli, Delhi. THE total sale consideration was agreed at Rs.4,10,000/- and which complete amount was paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent no.1. Rs.10,000/- was paid on 18.3.88, Rs.1,00,000/- was paid on 15.7.88, Rs.50,000/- was paid on 20.9.88, another Rs.50,000/- was paid on 15.10.88 and the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid on 7.12.88 thus making the total payment on which agreement to sell was entered into. THE respondent no.1 on receipt of entire consideration executed, agreement to sell, general power of attorney and Will, the last of the two were registered at Gurgaon, in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. THE case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the respondent no.1 became dishonest and sought to sell the subject property to respondents no.2 to 5/defendants no. 2 to 5 who forcibly dispossessed the appellant/plaintiff and whereupon the subject suit for specific performance was filed.

(3.) THE Trial court has thereafter arrived at a finding that it was respondent no. 1 who was guilty of the breach of contract. Ordinarily therefore once the complete price is paid, it is a natural consequence that the suit of the appellant/plaintiff ought to have been decreed for specific performance. However, the Trial Court after giving complete conclusions and findings in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, for some reason which I have failed to decipher, decreed the suit only for the price i.e. Rs.4,10,000/- with damages of Rs.1,00,000/- along with compound interest at 18% per annum. Since I have failed to appreciate and agree with the reasoning of the Trial Court, I would refer to paras 3 and 4 of the impugned judgment and decree which show the entitlement of the appellant/plaintiff for specific performance and yet the Trial Court has failed to grant the same. Paras 3 and 4 read as under:-