NAWAL SINGH Vs. MEHANT NARAIN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 13 th July, 1994 of the Court of the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi of dismissal of Suit No.6/1994 filed by the appellant for specific performance of an Agreement dated 5th December, 1984 by the respondent/defendant No.1 Mahant Narain Dass to sell the property consisting of one room with varandah and open courtyard built on a piece of land admeasuring 50 sq. yds. situated at Khasra No.400, Village -Kilokri known as Temur Nagar, New Delhi to the appellant/plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.50,000/ -. The respondent/defendant No.2 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta was impleaded being an occupant as tenant of the said property.

(2.) IT was inter alia the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the respondent/defendant No.1, at the time of Agreement to Sell itself and against receipt of the entire sale consideration of Rs.50,000/ -, had delivered vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the property to the appellant/plaintiff and had promised to execute the Sale Deed after obtaining the necessary permissions but failed to execute the Sale Deed and started attempting to dispossess the appellant/plaintiff therefrom and in which regard the appellant/plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for injunction against the respondent/defendant No.1 and in which interim order restraining the respondent/defendant No.1 from so dispossessing the appellant/plaintiff was also issued but before the same could be served on the respondent/defendant No.1, the respondent/defendant No.1 forcibly dispossessed the appellant/plaintiff from the property on 13th March, 1985. Accordingly, the suit was filed on 13 th October, 1987, besides for the relief of specific performance, also for the relief of mesne profits/damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.400/ - per month.

(3.) THE learned ADJ vide the impugned judgment, though held the respondent/defendant No.1 to have been unsuccessful in proving/establishing that the appellant/plaintiff had got the Agreement to Sell admittedly executed by him, executed from him fraudulently or for the reasons alleged but held the appellant/plaintiff to be still not entitled to the relief of specific performance on a finding of the property being of the temple known as Shiv Mandir of which the respondent/defendant No.1 was only a Pujari and thus had no right to sell the same.