SURINDER KUMAR Vs. BRAHM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide an Agreement to Sell dated 15th November, 1996, the defendant agreed to sell his 1/4th share in the agricultural land measuring 23 bighas, 6 biswas bearing Mustatil No. 94, Killa Nos. 2/2 (1-16), 14/1 Min. (0-15), 14/2, Min (0-8), 3(4-16), 4 (4-16), 7 (4-16), 8 (4-16), 27 (0- 2), Mustatil No. 67, Kills Nos. 23 South (0-15), Khasra No. 311 (0-16), situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Bijwasan, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi to the plaintiffs for a sale consideration of Rs 32,76,526/-. The plaintiffs paid part sale consideration of Rs 3,20,000/- to the defendant in three instalments. The balance sale consideration was to be paid within three months at the time of registration of the sale deed, after the defendant had obtained NOC, Income Tax Clearance Certificate and permission to sell from the concerned authorities. The case of the plaintiffs is that instead of complying with his contractual obligations, the defendant wanted the plaintiffs to make more payments on the pretext that the same was required to get the suit land partitioned and obtain the requisite permission. The plaintiffs paid a further sum of Rs 75,000/- to the defendant in two instalments. The defendant, however, did not take steps for completion of the transaction and did not execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, despite notice dated 05th May, 1999 from the plaintiff. The plaintiffs have now sought specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 15th November, 1996 by execution of the sale deed and handing over of the possession to them. They have further prayed that in case specific performance cannot be granted, a decree for damages to the tune of Rs 32,76,526/- along with interest on that amount at the rate of 12% per annum be passed in their favour.

(2.) The defendant has contested the suit. He has admitted execution of the agreement to sell dated 15th November, 1996 as also the receipt of part consideration from the plaintiffs. It is claimed that the plaintiffs failed to pay the balance sale consideration and, therefore, the defendant was entitled to forfeit the earnest money paid by them. It is also alleged that the defendant, after receiving the signed NOC from the plaintiff, applied for Income Tax Clearance Certificate and NOC. On receipt of Income Tax Clearance Certificate and NOC, he informed the plaintiffs in this regard vide letter dated 05th January, 2001, but the plaintiffs failed to respond to the same.

(3.) The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties:-