RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. SONIA BALA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application the Plaintiff seeks a decree as per provisions of Order XXII Rule 4 r/w Section 151 CPC in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant directing the Defendant to execute and register sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit property and release the balance sale consideration of Rs. 15 lakhs which stands deposited in this Court to the Defendant and in case of failure on the part of the Defendant, to appoint an officer of this Court to execute and register the sale deed of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Plaintiff/applicant contends that the Agreement to Sell dated 3rd April, 2010 between the parties has not been denied by the Defendant. Further the payment of Rs. 30 lakhs to the Defendant has also not been denied. The Plaintiff had sent a notice dated 27th April, 2011 to the Defendant seeking specific performance of the contract and in reply thereto no such defence has been taken which has been now pleaded in the written statement. Only in the reply dated 15th May, 2011 it is stated that the Plaintiff was required to pay a further sum of Rs. 10 lakhs beyond Rs. 15 lakhs. The claim of further sum of Rs. 10 lakhs is clearly an after thought and there is no document in relation thereto. Hence in view of the admissions made, the Plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Defendant on the other hand contends that the Agreement to Sell cannot be read in piecemeal. Para-2 of the Agreement to Sell dated 3rd April, 2010 clearly contemplates that the amount given would be forfeited if the balance sale consideration was not paid by 10th November, 2019. The Defendant was only required to provide the approval certificate for the lift. However, the Plaintiff started demanding the lift as well. In para- 9 of the plaint it is stated that the lift was not provided. There is no notice before 10th November, 2010, which was the date when the contract was required to be concluded, stating that the Plaintiff inspected the premises and the work had not been completed. Thus the Plaintiff is not entitled to a decree as prayed for as there is no admission of the facts mentioned in the plaint.