S NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. PARKASH WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this suit, Sardar Niranjan Singh has soughtenforcement of the agreemnt to sell entered into by him with late Smt. ParkashWati. It is alleged that Smt. Parkash Wati had avoided to perform her part of theagreement, hence the plaintiff is forced to file the suit for specific performanceand in the alternative for a decree for damages amounting to Rs. 3,45,000.00alongwith interest.

(2.) The case as set up in the plaint is that Smt. Parkash Wati entered into anagrement to sell dated 30/03/1980 with the plaintiff for the sale of her singlestorey house bearing No. 26, Road No. 70, -Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi foradmeasuring 361.43 sq. yards for a total consideration of Rs. 3,45,000.00. Plaintiffpaid a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 as earnest money on 17/03/1980 vide chequedrawn on Syndicate Bank at Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. The said amount was dulyencashed by Smt. Parkash Wati through her son Shri Harbans Lal (defendantherein) on 18/03/1980. It was the term of the agreement that the necessarypapers for registration will be completed and the registration would be donewithin three months from the date of the agreement, hence the plaintiff approached the defendant for signing the necessary forms and affidavits for grantof sale permission and Income Tax Clearance Certificate required for the sale ofthe house in question. He also requested the defendant to execute the sale deed.But Smt. Parkash Wati refused to sign any such papers. Ultimately, plaintiff servedher with a notice dated 13/06/1980 asking her to appear on 16/06/1980before the Sub Registrar for registration of the sale deed. Smt. Parkash Wati insteadof adhearing to the terms of the contract sent false replies. She took wrong standvide her letter dated 17/06/1980. The contentions and allegations madetherein were refuted by the plaintiff by his legal notice dated 24/06/1980.Notices issued by the plaintiff were duly received by Smt. Parkash Wati but shefalsely stated that the plaintiff had no funds and that it was his duty to obtain salepermission and Income Tax Clearance Certificate. These false allegations weremade with the intention to avoid the execution of the sale deed. She intentionallyrefused to perform her part of the contract. The plaintiff had always been readyand willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendant avoided to do so.On account of non-performance of contract on her part he suffered losses.

(3.) The defendant in her written statement denied the validity of the agreement. She took the plea that it was infact the plaintiff who failed to adhere to thestipulated terms of the agreement. Plaintiff was to pay the balance amount withinthree months from 17/03/1980 but he failed to pay the same within thestipulated period. There was oral understanding between the parties that thesale permission and Income Tax Clearance Certificate would be obtained by theplaintiff as Smt. Parkash Wati was an old woman hence the plaintiff took uponhimself to obtain these permissions. Defendant was only to sign the documentsin that regard as and when required by the plaintiff. She had always been ready tocooperate in this regard. But plaintiff avoided to obtain the permission becausehe had no funds to pay the balance amount, and thus committed the breach of theagreement. Defendant had always been ready and willing to perform her part ofthe contract. That is the reason in response to plaintiff's letter dated 13/06/1980the defendant informed the plaintiff telegraphically on 16/06/1980 itself thatshe would be appearing before the Sub Registrar for registration of the sale deed.But it was the plaintiff who did not turn up. The defendant waited for the plaintiffin the office of the Sub Registrar on 16/06/1980 till 3.00 p.m. Plaintiff cannottake advantage of his own wrongs. Since, the prices of the property have goneup, therefore, he has filed this suit. He had in fact no funds to pay the balanceprice within the stipulated period of three months.