LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-219

LAXMI DEVI Vs. MAHAVIR SINGH

Decided On May 01, 2012
LAXMI DEVI Appellant
V/S
MAHAVIR SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment of the trial Court dated 20.4.2011 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff filed for specific performance of the agreement dated 20.9.2007 with respect to the property admeasuring 200 sq. yds. situated in Khasra No.32, Janta Vihar-II, village Mukand Pur, Delhi-42 (hereinafter referred to as the ,,suit property).

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the parties, the appellant/defendant as the proposed seller and the respondent/plaintiff (a property dealer by profession) as the proposed buyer entered into an agreement to sell dated 20.9.2007 with respect to the suit property. THE total sale consideration was fixed at RS.5,60,000/- of which a sum of RS. 1 lakh was paid in cash to the appellant/defendant. THE respondent/plaintiff claimed that the balance consideration was to be paid by 20.12.2007 but the appellant/defendant failed to receive the sale consideration and did not obtain an NOC for sale of the property. It was pleaded that there appeared to be some disputes with respect to the suit property because of which the appellant/defendant was not executing the transfer documents in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. A legal notice dated 18.12.2007 was sent by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant to which a reply was given by the appellant/defendant disputing the case set up by the respondent/plaintiff and in reply it was contended that it was the respondent/plaintiff who was guilty of breach of contract in failing to make the payment of the balance consideration. THE subject suit thereafter came to be filed.

(3.) THE main issues which were canvassed before this Court pertain to (i) who was guilty of breach of the contract i.e. whether the appellant or the respondent, (ii) whether the respondent/plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and (iii) as to whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance in the facts of the present case.