NAVENDU Vs. AMARJIT S BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant, who is the owner of the property bearing number Q-12-B, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110 014, entered into an agreement dated 17.11.2008 to sell the first floor of the above referred property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.69,50,000/- and received a part consideration of Rs.20 lac from his on the same day. The balance amount was agreed to be paid within two months i.e. by 17.01.2009, at the time of registration of the sale deed, and the defendant was to handover possession of the property to the plaintiff at that time. It is alleged that despite requests made by the plaintiff from time to time, defendant refused to produce the original documents of title of the aforesaid property for perusal of the representative of the bank from which the plaintiff intended to take a loan. It is further alleged that the plaintiff arranged the entire balance payment required for completing the transaction and vide notice dated 13.01.2009 called upon the defendant to bring the original papers and execute the sale deed on or before 17.01.2009. He also informed the defendant that the balance sale consideration was ready with him. The plaintiff also visited the Office of Sub-Registrar on 16.01.2009, but the defendant did not turn up on that date. It is further alleged that in the second week of February, 2009, the defendant assured the plaintiff that he would produce the original documents in the second week of February, 2009 and that the plaintiff should arrange the sale consideration partly in cash and partly by way of a demand draft of Rs.19 lac. The defendant kept on assuring the plaintiff that he would be able to locate the original title deeds. Apprehensive of the intentions of the defendant, the plaintiff issued a public notice on 22.02.2009 in the newspapers informing the public in general with respect to the agreement which the defendant had executed with him. Since the transaction was not completed, the plaintiff has filed this suit claiming specific performance of the agreement dated 17.4.2008, production or the original title deeds and execution of conveyance deed in his favour. He also claimed an alternative relief for recovery of Rs.20 lac as also such damages as may be quantified by the Court.

(2.) The defendant has contested the suit. He has admitted execution of the agreement with the plaintiff as also receiving Rs.20 lac from him. It is alleged in the written statement that the original sale deed has been misplaced and a certified copy was, therefore, obtained by the defendant from the Office of Sub-Registrar, well before signing the agreement with the plaintiff. The defendant provided this information to the plaintiff and only thereafter did the plaintiff request him to sell the property. It is also alleged that in December, 2008, the plaintiff asked the defendant to sell the property at a lesser price since there was a recession in the market. The defendant, however, denied the illegal demand of the plaintiff and asked him to pay the balance amount as per the agreement. It is further alleged that the plaintiff informed the defendant that he did not have the remaining amount to pay to him. The receipt of the letter/ notice dated 13.5.2009 has however not been disputed in the written statement.

(3.) On 24.11.2009, the following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties: