MOHAN MADAN Vs. SHEEL GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject suit being decided by this judgment is a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff, Sh.Madan Mohan against the defendant, Smt. Sheel Gulati. Plaintiff seeks specific performance of the Receipt-cum-Agreement dated 5.10.2005 with respect to the property bearing no. BN-53, Shalimar Bagh (East), Delhi. The agreed total sale consideration was Rs.2.39 crores of which plaintiff claims that he paid a sum of Rs.25 lacs on the date of execution of the Agreement to Sell dated 5.10.2005. In terms of the Agreement to Sell, plaintiff had to pay further sums of Rs.50 lacs upto 20.1.2006 and Rs.25 lacs upto 20.2.2006. The case of the plaintiff is that when he went to the defendant for making payment of these amounts, the defendant refused to accept the same and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance. Plaintiff pleads that he sent a Legal Notice dated 24.1.2006 to the defendant and thereafter filed the subject suit. Plaintiff also pleads that he has always been and is even today ready to perform his part of the contract and make the payments as per the agreed schedule.

(2.) Defendant has filed the written statement praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground that out of the amount of Rs.25 lacs which was paid under the Receipt-cum-Agreement dated 5.10.2005, a sum of Rs.10 lacs was paid by means of a cheque drawn of one Sh. Dharampal Malik in favour of the defendant, but, this cheque bounced on presentation. Defendant states that on bouncing of the cheque, the defendant through her lawyer got issued a Legal Notice dated 19.10.2005 mentioning about the factum of dishonour of cheque and asking the plaintiff to abide by the terms of the Agreement dated 5.10.2005 and which the plaintiff failed to do. The defendant denies that the plaintiff ever approached the defendant with either the amount of Rs.50 lacs as on 20.1.2006 or the further amount of Rs.25 lacs on 20.2.2006. Defendant has denied that the plaintiff has always been or continues to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

(3.) I may note that the plaintiff has not filed any replication to the written statement filed by the defendant, and this aspect is being noted because this aspect will have bearing on the decision of the suit.