LALIT KUMAR SABHARWAL Vs. VED PRAKASH VIJH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 8.11.1994 in respect of House N0.8/15-A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi measuring 100 sq.yards.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff, briefly stated, is that the defendant is the co-owner of a House constructed on Plot NO.8/15-A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-8. The defendant approached the plaintiff for sale of his share in the said house measuring about 100 sq. yards and showed him the copies of the documents in 2 support of hie title. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the said house for a sum of Rs.27 lacs and accordingly, an agreement dated 8.11.1994 was entered into between the parties. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.l lac to the defendant. Re.50,000/- were paid in cash and Rs.50,000/- were paid by a crossed cheque. The agreement was signed by the parties and attested by two witnesses. It was also agreed that a formal agreement on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.2/- would be executed on 9.11.1994 recording the terms and conditions which were orally agreed upon by the parties. The plaintiff purchased a stamp paper of Rs.2/- for the said purpose and got the agreement typed out. However, when he approached the defendant for signing the same, the defendant did not sign it on one pretext or the other and thereafter avoided the specific performance of the agreement to sell. The plaintiff sent him a legal notice dated 10.2.1995. The defendant sent a reply dated 22.2.1995 along with a draft of Rs.l lac claiming it to be loan amount allegedly taken by the defendant from the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement for the execution of the sale deed and hence the suit for the decree of a specific performance.

(3.) The defendant filed a written statement disputing that there was any agreement to sell between the parties in respect of the property in question. According to him, the marriage of his daughter was fixed on 11.2.1995 and that of his son on 14.10.1995 and as such, he was in need of money. He approached a property broker Nirmal Singh who introduced him to the plaintiff. The plaintiff assured to arrange a loan of Rs.6 lacs within two months and advanced him loan of Rs.l lac on interest of 20% per annum. The property in question was to remain a security against the loan but since the plaintiff failed to pay the balance loan and the answering defendant had to make alternative arrangements from other sources, the loan of Rs.l lac received from the plaintiff was returned vide a pay order dated 22.2.1995. The defendant emphatically denied that any agreement to sell was entered into between the parties and averred that the plaintiff was harassing and blackmailing him. It was alleged that the plaintiff was a builder and was eyeing his property. It was also stated that the document dated 8.11.1994 was merely a receipt and not an agreement to sell. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant controverting the pleas raised by the defendant.