SUMINDER SINGH REEN Vs. SATYA KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the outset, Learned Counsel for the plaintiff states that the relief in the present suit may be confined to prayers (a), (b) and (d) as she does not wish to press prayer clause (c) which is for the relief of compensation. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The relief in the present suit is confined to prayers (a), (b) and (d), while excluding prayer clause (c). The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendant in respect of the ground floor of premises bearing No. 80/65 -A, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises') praying inter alia that a decree of specific performance be passed in his favour and against the defendant, directing her to co -operate with the plaintiff for getting the Sale Deed dated 30.11.2011 in respect of the suit premises registered in the office of the Registrar of Assurances and hand over vacant peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiff.

(2.) IT is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff had wanted to purchase a property in the locality of Malviya Nagar. The son of the defendant, who is stated to be a property dealer, arranged for his mother to sell the suit premises to the plaintiff. After negotiations, the defendant had agreed to sell the ground floor of the suit premises to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 28 lacs. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 11 lacs to the defendant in cash as part sale consideration, thus leaving a sum of Rs. 17 lacs as due and payable to the defendant.

(3.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that on 25.11.2011 he had purchased stamp duty worth Rs. 1,68,000/ - and the Sale Deed was executed by the parties on 30.11.2011. The stamp duty purchased by the plaintiff is marked as Ex. PW1/3. The said Sale Deed (Ex. PW1/2) was signed by the parties on every page and it bears the finger prints and thumb impression of the plaintiff and the defendant on the reverse side of two pages. Further, it is submitted that Form -A enclosed with the Sale Deed was duly signed by the defendant after she had received the entire sale consideration. However, after executing the Sale Deed, the defendant failed to accede to the repeated requests of the plaintiff to get the said document registered. Finally, when the plaintiff got suspicious about the conduct of the defendant and the manner in which, she was dilly -dallying, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a letter dated 15.12.2011 (Ex. PW1/4) to the defendant calling upon her to get the Sale Deed registered. However, the aforesaid letter was returned by the postal authorities with the remark that no such person was residing at the said address. The aforesaid article has been exhibited as Ex. PW1/5. The site plan of the suit premises has been filed by the plaintiff and is marked as Ex. PW1/1. In the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiff claims that he had no option but to institute the present suit on 09.01.2012.