PARYAG RAJ Vs. GAURAV ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal and factual matrix involved in these three appeals being same, the matters are taken up together for disposal. Learned counsel for respondent in all these cases has appeared on advance intimation and accepts notice, submitting that there is absolutely no merit in these appeals. Learned counsel for both sides also submitted that since copies of trial court record have already been filed by the appellants, there is no need to adjourn the matter to requisition trial court record. As such with consent of both side, I have heard final arguments today itself.

(2.) Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for the present purposes are that the present respondent filed three suits against the appellant Shri Prayag Raj and his son Rajesh Kumar for Specific Performance of Agreements dtd. 23/11/2022 to Sell three different premises, coupled with the consequential reliefs of possession, injunction and mesne profits. The suit from which RFA 669/2024 arises pertains to plot No. 83 of khasra no. 50/2, situated in Village Bhalaswa Jahangir Pur, Delhi; the suit from which RFA 670/2024 arises pertains to land admeasuring 40 sq yards in khasra no. 734, situated in Village Bhalaswa Jahangir Pur, Delhi; and the suit from which RFA 671/2024 arises pertains to plot No. 7A of khasra no. 19/15, situated in Village Samay Pur, Delhi. For convenience, the said three properties are collectively referred to herein as 'the subject properties".

(3.) In the plaints pertaining to the said suits, the present respondent pleaded that the appellants were known to him and they expressed their intention to sell away the subject properties; that after mutual discussions and negotiations, parties arrived at the amount of sale consideration in respect of each of the subject properties; that accordingly, the parties executed three Agreements to Sell with attendant documents namely the General Power of Attorney, Affidavit, Receipt and Deed of Will, all dtd. 23/11/2022; that the entire sale consideration of each of the subject properties was paid in advance to the appellants against receipts; that possession of the subject properties was not handed over by the appellants to the respondent on 23/11/2022 itself as they needed some time to shift out; that on 31/3/2023, when the respondent reminded the appellants to comply with the terms of the Agreements to Sell, the latter picked quarrel and threatened the former; that the respondent served legal notices dtd. 25/12/2023 upon the appellants, calling them upon to perform their parts of Agreements to Sell as the entire sale considerations had already been received by the appellants. The appellants having opted to ignore the said notices, the respondent filed three suits for Specific Performance of those Agreements to Sell against the appellants.