SATISH KUMAR Vs. PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of FAO No.162/2007 titled Satish Kumar & Anr. Vs. Prakash.

(2.) Vide order dated 21.2.2007, the learned ADJ, Delhi dismissed the application u/O 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC of the appellants/plaintiffs.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant filed a suit for specific performance with consequential relief for permanent injunction against the respondent. It was alleged that in the month of May, 2005, the respondent had approached the appellants to sell their agricultural land bearing Khata No.25/21, Khasra No.16/26 (0-3), (1/2 share) and Khata No.24/10, in Khasra No.16/12/2 (1-6) total area measuring 3 bighas 15 biswas and 10 biswansi situated in the revenue estate of Village Kazipur, Tehsil Najafgarh, New Delhi for a total consideration of Rs. 6,70,000/-. The rate on which this amount was arrived was @Rs. 8,50,000/- per acre. It was alleged that an agreement to sell and purchase/Bayana agreement dated 20.6.2006 was reduced into writing between the parties. It was alleged that the respondent had agreed to hand over the documents of ownership in due course of time and a sum of Rs. 70,000/- was paid to the respondent/defendant by way of cheque dated 20.5.2005 drawn on Corporation Bank, Nangloi as an advance money and the balance amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- was paid to the respondent by way of cash on 20.6.2005 as a part payment towards the consideration for which a separate receipt dated 20.6.05 acknowledging the receipt of total sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was issued. It was alleged in the plaint that the appellants approached the respondent to perfect the title of the appellant as they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract for all times, however, the respondent kept on postponing the same on one pretext or the other. It was alleged that the appellants got record of the Revenue Department inspected and found to his utter surprise that the respondent had mortgaged the land in dispute with the Corporation Bank, Nagloi. This resulted in issuance of legal notice dated 28.12.2005, which was sent to the respondent/defendant calling upon him to perform his part of the contract but this did not bring any fruitful result. This resulted in filing the suit for specific performance along with an application seeking ad interim injunction that the respondent be restraint from selling, alienating or otherwise parting with possession of the suit property or creating any third party interest.