S K GUPTA Vs. AVTAR SINGH BEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ex.PW-1/1 is the foundation of the present suit. It reads as under :

(2.) Based on Ex.PW-1/1, case of the plaintiff is that the defendants, the 8 executants of Ex.PW-1/1, agreed to sell property bearing No.T-10, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi to the plaintiff at an agreed price of Rs.25,00,000/- and received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as part payment and advance towards sale consideration. Balance sum of Rs.24,00,000/- was to be paid within 3 months of the defendants obtaining the requisite clearances including the income tax clearance and at the time of execution of the sale deed. Plaintiff, time and again requested defendants to obtain the requisite permissions. On 9.1.1989, plaintiff caused to be issued a legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to obtain the requisite clearances. Plaintiff expresses his willingness to comply with his obligation and pay the balance sum of Rs.24,00,000/- before the Sub-Registrar at the time of execution of sale deed. Defendants responded to plaintiff's legal notice dated 9.1.1989 vide reply dated 19.1.1989. Reply accepted receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance part sale consideration. However, defendants took a stand in the reply dated 19.1.1989 that the receipt does not constitute an agreement of sale because it lacks essential ingredients of an agreement of sale. Defendants further stated in the reply that plaintiff had not furnished requisite information to the Income Tax Authorities. Defendants stated that sum of Rs.1,00,000/- stood forfeited due to default of the plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges in the suit that the defence afore-noted is legally not sustainable. Defence is a ruse to wriggle out of the sale consideration. Making averments in the plaint that plaintiff was always ready and willing and continues to be ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration present suit was filed on 25.1.1990 praying as under :

(3.) Defendants were served. Only defendants 1 and 3 filed a written statement. Vide order dated 28.11.1991, defendants 2 and 4 to 8 were proceeded against ex-parte. Said order continues to exist.