NARENDER DABAS Vs. SHAKUNTLA GAUTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the defendant who is the owner and in possession of Janta Flat No. 24/6, First Floor, East Vinay Nagar, New Delhi agreed to sell the aforesaid flat to him for a consideration of Rs 23 lakh and after mutual negotiations, an Agreement to Sell dated 20.04.2010 was executed, whereby it was agreed that the registration of the sale deed would take place on or before June 12, 2010. This is also the case of the plaintiff that he paid a sum of Rs 22,20,000/- to the defendant on various dates, partly in cash and partly by way of cheques. It is further alleged that on the request of the defendant, the parties entered into another agreement dated 12.06.2010, whereby it was agreed that registration of sale deed would be completed on or before 31.08.2010. By that time, the plaintiff had already paid a sum of Rs 13,20,000/- to the defendant. The plaintiff thereafter made further payments, thereby bringing the total amount paid to the defendant to Rs 22,20,000/-. This is also the case of the plaintiff that despite agreement, the defendant had not come forward to take the balance sale consideration amounting to Rs 80,000/- and execute the sale deed in his favour. The plaintiff has accordingly sought specific performance of the agreement dated 12.06.2010.

(2.) THE case of the defendant, on the other hand, is that the sale consideration for sale of the aforesaid flat was agreed at Rs 47,00,000/- and an advance receipt- cum-agreement to sell and purchase executed accordingly on 20.04.2010. It is alleged in the written statement that the plaintiff had told the defendant that he was in the process of availing a loan facility from Oriental Bank of Commerce and, therefore, wanted an agreement for a sum of Rs 23 lakh. The defendant alleges to have complied with the aforesaid request by executing the agreement dated 12.06.2010 with a view to assist the plaintiff in securing the loan from the bank. The defendant has admitted receipt of the payments amounting to Rs 22,20,000/- from the plaintiff, but alleges that the plaintiff did not come forward to pay the balance sale consideration.

(3.) FROM whatever angle I am examine, prima facie the conduct of the plaintiff is highly suspicious and indicates that he has not come to the Court with clean hands and has not shared full facts of the case with the Court.