SANJAY GUPTA Vs. RAM PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has filed this suit for Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell dated 25th May, 1992, damages and injunction. In nutshell, case of the plaintiff is that defendant had agreed to sell his 1/6th undivided share in the agricultural land admeasuring 55 bighas 5 biswas forming part of Village Bijwasan, vide an Agreement to Sell dated 25th May, 1992 (hereinafter "the Agreement"), for a total sale consideration of '23 lacs. Defendant received a sum of '2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Thousand Only), that is, '10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) in cash and '2,40,000/ - (Rupees Two Lacs Forty Thousand Only) vide cheque no. 890599 dated 25th May, 1992 towards earnest money, at the time of execution of the Agreement. Subsequently, on 30th April, 1992, another sum of '40,000/ - (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) was paid to the defendant's son Mr. Daya Chand against receipt, leaving behind a balance of '20,10,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Ten Thousand Only) towards sale consideration, payable at the time of execution of Sale Deed. In terms of the Agreement, defendant was required to obtain necessary 'No Objection Certificate' under Section 269-UL of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") from the Appropriate Authority; 'Clearance Certificate' under Section 34-A of the Act from the Income Tax authority and requisite 'No Objection Certificate' from the office of ADM. 'No Objection Certificate' under Section 269-UL of the Act was granted by the Appropriate/Competent Authority on 13th July, 1992. On persistent request of the plaintiff, defendant also obtained 'Clearance Certificate' under the Act, on 23rd December 1994. However, he did not take any step to obtain 'No Objection Certificate' from the ADM's office. On persuasion of the plaintiff, defendant represented that in case plaintiff was interested in completion of sale transaction he may pursue the matter and obtain 'No Objection Certificate' from the ADM's office himself. Accordingly, plaintiff obtained 'No Objection Certificate' from the said authority on 29th November, 1994. Thereafter, plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant to execute Sale Deed and get the same registered with Sub-Registrar, after receiving balance sale consideration. He also requested the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit land to plaintiff, after executing the Sale Deed. However, defendant did not come forward to execute the Sale Deed, as prices of the property had gone up astronomically. Vide legal notice dated 12th May, 1995, defendant was called upon to perform his part of contract and to get the Sale Deed registered with Sub-Registrar's office after receiving balance sale consideration and also to hand over the vacant possession of the land to plaintiff but to no effect. Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying balance sale consideration to defendant, on execution of Sale Deed. But it is the defendant who was not ready and willing to execute the Sale Deed. Hence the suit.

(2.) In the written statement, defendant has not denied his signatures on the Agreement. His case is that the plaintiff had approached him for the purchase of his share in the land in question. It is the plaintiff who got the Agreement prepared, which was signed by the defendant. Defendant was an illiterate and uneducated agriculturist aged about 86 years and was not well-versed either with English or Hindi language. The Agreement was not read over to defendant by the plaintiff before he appended his signatures thereon. Plaintiff had obtained the signatures of defendant on certain other blank papers also on the pretext of making various applications before the concerned Government authorities, seeking necessary clearances. No Objection/ Clearance Certificates had been obtained by the plaintiff. Defendant was always ready and willing to perform his part of agreement, but it is the plaintiff who failed to obtain requisite sale permissions from the Appropriate/ Competent Authorities, within the stipulated time. Plaintiff slept over the matter for more than three years, thus, was estopped from claiming any relief because of his own conduct. Agreement to Sell dated 25th May, 1992 was, otherwise, unenforceable as the defendant has transferred his share in land to one Sh. B.S. Mehra in the month of December, 1994 for valuable consideration. It was alleged that the suit is hopelessly barred by time. It was further alleged that the sale consideration of 23 lacs was only with regard to the land and not for the two tube-wells for which defendant had agreed to pay 1 lac each separately. Defendant has denied that he had received '2,90,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs and Ninety Thousand Only) from the plaintiff. Defendant further denied the allegation of the plaintiff that his son had received '40,000/ -towards part sale consideration. Defendant has denied that the plaintiff had approached him from time to time for obtaining clearance from the Income Tax Authority or from ADM's office. It was alleged that plaintiff had never contacted the defendant in this regard as he had already obtained the signatures of defendant on certain blank documents for this purpose. It was denied that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying the balance sale consideration.

(3.) Plaintiff has filed replication, whereby he has denied the averments made in the written statement and has reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint.