BRAHM PRAKASH Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , J.

(2.) WE need to pen a preamble to our opinion. It may be brusque, scathing and harsh in its sweep, but we feel that it is our duty to so record. It is our message to the learned members of the Bar who are approached by the weak, needy, under-privileged, simple village folk etc. to defend them when actions are brought in Courts. : The learned members of the Bar are the only hopes of the poor to seek protection; and therefore you have no excuse but to be better than the best of the lawyers of the corporates and the elite. For they have nothing to lose; but the poor loses out completely if you are incompetent.

(3.) OBSERVING that as per the law declared in the decisions reported as (1928) LR 55 IA 360 Ardeshr Mama v. Flora Sassoon, AIR 1968 SC 1355 Premraj v. DLF Housing & Construction Pvt. Ltd., 1997 (3) SCC 140 R.C.Chandiok & Anr. v. Chuni Lal Sabharwal & Ors. and the decision reported as (2004) 6 SCC 649 P.D Souza v. Shondrilo Nidu , readiness and willingness of a party to perform its contractual obligations under an agreement to sell cannot be treated as confined within a straight jacket formula and that the same has to be determined from the entirety of the facts and circumstances relevant to the intention and the conduct of the parties concerned, vide impugned judgment and decree dated December, 13, 2011 suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated November, 15 1996 ( Ex. PW-1/1) filed by the respondents against the appellant has been decreed, but by enhancing the price settled as reflected in Ex.PW-1/1 from Rs.32,76,526/- to the current circle rates fixed by the Government, for which increase in the price, the learned Single Judge has held that equity so demands keeping in view the astronomical appreciation in the price of agricultural land in Delhi since 1996 till the year 2011 when the suit was decreed; notwithstanding that the learned Single Judge found the appellant to be the defaulting party.