ARSHAD ZAMAL SIDDIQUI Vs. RAVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE agreement to sell dated 25.04.2011, defendants 1 to 3 agreed to sell land measuring 1000 square yards forming part of Khasra No. 372 Min, situated in the area of Village Jasola, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi to the plaintiffs for a total sale consideration of Rs 4,10,00,000.00 and received a sum of Rs 50 lakh from them as earnest money. As per the agreement between the parties, the balance payment was to be made and possession of the land subject matter of the agreement was to be delivered to the plaintiffs on or before 30.09.2011.

(2.) AT the time of execution of the agreement between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, two suits were pending with respect to the land subject matter of the agreement and this was recorded in para 8 of the agreement. One suit was pending in this Court and the other suit was pending in Tis Hazari Courts. In Suit No. 645/2004 pending in this Court, an order was passed by this Court on 16.09.2011 directing the parties to the suit to maintain status quo with respect to the title, possession and construction on the land measuring 5 bighas and 8 biswas out of Khasra No. 372 Min, Shaheen Bagh, Village Jasola, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. Admittedly, the land subject matter of the agreement between the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 forms part of the land which was subject matter of suit No. 645/2004. Defendants 1 to 3 were not parties to the said suit, but Mzt. Razia Shaheen who had entered into an agreement to sell this land to defendants 1 to 3 was a party to that suit. The case of the plaintiffs is that on account of the order dated 16.09.2011, passed by this Court in Suit No. 645/2004, defendants 1 to 3 were not in a position to hand over possession of the land subject matter of the agreement to them. He further states that at no point of time the defendants informed them of vacation of stay order and therefore they did not write to them offering the balance sale consideration and seeking possession of the land and execution of sale deed. The learned counsel for the defendants 1 to 3, on the other hand, states that possession of the said land was with defendants 1 to 3 even at the time they agreed to sell the same to the plaintiffs and, therefore, they were in a position to deliver possession to the plaintiffs on or before 30.09.2011. The learned counsel for the defendants 1 to 3 further states that even on 16.09.2011, it is defendants 1 to 3 who were in possession of the said land.

(3.) THIS is also the case of the plaintiffs that they made a further payment of Rs 75 lakh to defendants 1 to 3 on 10.09.2011 and the payment was acknowledged by defendants 2 and 3 by way of a receipt which they executed while receiving the money. The said payment has been denied by defendants 1 to 3 and their case is that the receipt is filed by the plaintiffs in this regard is forged document. The case of the plaintiff is that they had withdrawn about Rs 50 lakh from their bank account and taken loan of Rs 25 lakh from one Mr Anishur Rehman for making the said payment to defendants 1 to 3. The question as to whether the receipt filed by the plaintiffs to prove the payment of Rs 75 lakh to defendants 1 to 3 is a forged document or not, is a matter which can be decided only after recording evidence. As regards the balance payment of Rs 2.85 crore, the plaintiffs have already deposited the said amount in the Court to show their bona fides and to show their readiness and willingness to complete the transaction.