JAI DEV SHARMA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit the plaintiff has sought relief of Specific: performance of the agreement dated February 20, 1983, with directions to the defendants to deliver possession of the properties shown as marks 'A', 'B', 'C' & D' in plan mark 'X'. The facts of the case leading to the filing of the prsent suit, in brief, are that the plaintiff had vide two agreements dated January \ 20. 1975, agreed to sell 208 Sq. Yadrs alongwith the super structure for a consideration of Rs. 14,660.00 in the first agreement and passage 10' X 16' for a sum of Rs. 2500.00 in respect of the second agreement and possession of the aforesaid pieces of land was given to defendant No. 1. It is the case of the plaintiff that . later on, vide agreement dated April 9, 1978, the plaintiff agreed to sell 100 Sq. yards of land to defendant No. I fora sale consideration of Rs. 11, 500.00 but shortly thereafter the said agreement was cancelled and defendant No. 1 on May 16, 1978, executed the receipt of obtaining back Rs. 11.500.00 . The plaintiff has filed a civil suit seeking an injunction on the averments that defendants were trying to enter upon the land belonging to the plaintiff which is mark 'C' in respect of which the agreement to sell was cancelled and also on another plot belonging to the plaintiff which is mark 'D' in the plan mark 'X'. Before the summons in that suit were served the plaintiff on July 18, 1979, entered into an agreement for sale of plot mark 'Dl' measuring 60 sq. yards which was ' out of the land mark 'D' in the aforesaid plan mark 'X' for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,250.00 for which possession was also given to defendant No. 2. It appears that on account of serious disputes arising between the parties with regard to the factum whether the agreement for sale in respect of the portion mark 'C' was actually cancelled or not, some occurrence took place between the parties which led to the filing of cross criminal cases. Plaintiff and his two sons Vijay Kumar and Satish Kumar and one Hans Raj Vaid were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 307, 452 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code while defendants and Brij Lal were prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 323, 452 & 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code The cross criminal cases were pending in ' the Court of Shri K.B.Andley, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi while the civil suit was pending in the Court presided by Shri R.S. Mahla, Sub Judge. The criminal cases were fixed in between the period February 14, 198 3 to February 17, 1983, for recording evidence.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that during the course of recording the ^ evidence on February 17, 1983, Shri K.B. Andley suggested to the parties that they may make the efforts to settle their civil disputes as well as criminal litigation and he offered his assistance to the parties for bringing about a reasonable compromise. It is averred that the plaintiff and the defendants agreed to the suggestion of Sbri Andley and thereafter Sbri Andley suggested that a proper joint application be moved in the civil Court with a prayer to the Presiding Officer of the Civil Court for inspecting the spot on a particular day and on which date he would also come to the spot for making efforts for bringing about settlement between the partial regarding their civil dispute. The joint application dated February 17. 1983, was moved in the Court ofShri R.S. Mahla which was directed to belisted for February 19, 1983, and then on that day Shri Mahla passed the order for spot inspection at 10 A..M. on February 20, 1983. It is averred that on the fixed date and time Shri Andley and Sbri Mahla bad arrived at the spot. The Ahlmad, as directed earlier, had brought the file of the civil case and there the parties entered into an agreement which was duly recorded in the file of the civil case and the agreement was signed by the parties. By virtue of that agreement the defendants agreed to return the land subject-matter of the aforesaid four agreements alongwith super structure to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 2,40,000.00 . Rs. 2,000.00 were paid as earnest money then and therefor which a receipt was executed by the defendants in favour of the 563 plaintiff. The balance amount was to be paid on or before April 30, 1983 and on receipt of the said amount the defendants were to be left with no rights in the aforesed land and the super structure except that defendants were given right to remove the machinery and other furnitures and fixtures from the factory and defendants. were to execute necesssary documents in favour of the plaintiff. It appears' that defendants had moved applications before the learned Sub-Judge later on mentioning that Shri N.N.Gupta, Advocate, Who was present for the defendants at the spot was not conversant with civil matters and thus, could not give proper advice to the defendants and they prayed that the proceedings recorded by the Sub-Judge on February 20, 1983, be revoked. The applications were opposed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff also moved an application on April 28, 1983, mentioning that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and was ready to pay the balance amount but the defendants contested that application. Apparently defendants were not willing to go ahead with the terms of the agreement. The learned Sub-Judge dismissed the applications of the defendants. The defendants filed civil revision No. 663/83 against that order which was also dismissed after issuing show-cause notice on November 21, 1983.

(3.) As the defendants failed to perform their part of the agreement, so, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking the decree for specific performance with directions to the defendants to put the plaintiff in possession on receipt of Rs. 2,38,000.00 .