SIDDHARTH SURI Vs. MUNISH SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of contract and seeks following reliefs:

(2.) BRIEF admitted facts of the matter are:

(3.) IT was also alleged that since the proposed sale deed was not as per the terms of the agreement to sell, the defendants asked the plaintiff to make it strictly in accordance with the agreement to sell and pay the balance sale consideration on or before 30 th April, 2005. IT is submitted by the defendants that the plaintiff promised to send revised sale deed on the next day. The plaintiff has filed the fabricated draft sale deed which is different than the draft sale deed filed by the defendants as Annexure-A along with the written statement. Since the plaintiff did not make the balance consideration to the defendants on or before 30 th April, 2005, the defendants had rightly forfeited the amount and intimation was given to the plaintiff by notice dated 2nd May, 2005 who concealed the receipt of notice in the plaint. Issues