ROMESH CHANDRA Vs. CHUNI LAL SABHARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the judgment and decree, dated March 30, 1959, of the First Class Commercial Subordinate Judge of Delhi. dismissing their suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of the property in dispute but giving .them a decree for the refund of the earnest money amounting to Rs. 7500.00 with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of six per cent per annum till realisation.

(2.) The defendants, Chuni Lal Sabharwal and Inder Raj Sabhanval, are father and son. On July 4, 1951, they were allotted plot No. S in Jangpura B,New Delhi, for a consideration of Rs.l5,000.00 by the Rehabilitation Ministry of the Government of India (D. A.) on May 29, 19-"2, they werc informed that the plot, 1500 square yards in area, had been demarcated, and that they could take possession of it (Public Witness 4). On July 18, 1955 they entered into an agreement with the two plaintiffs, who are real brothers, to sell that plot to them for a consideration of Rs. 22,500.00 taking from them Rs. 7,500.00 as earnest money, and passing the receipt (P. 6) to them as evidence of the agreement as also of the receipt of the earnest money. This agreement. P. 6, further said that the plaintiffs were to pay the balance of the consideration within two months of the execution of that receipt by the defendants in their favour. On August II, 1955, Chuni La] Sabhar- wal defendant for himself and for his son Inder Raj Sabharwal gave to the plaintiff the letter P. 7, which it is proper to reproduce here in full-

(3.) On March 29, 1956, the defendants paid ground rent for the plot (D. 2 and Public Witness 4), Sanction for transfer was not permissible by the Rehabilitation Ministry until the ground rent was paid. The lease of the plot in favour of the defendants by the Rehabilitation Ministry was executed on April 21 and registered on June 1, 1956 (P. W. 4) On June 15, 1956, the defendants, through counsel, "gave notice P. 8 to the plaintiffs, pointing out that the contract of sale was to be completed within one month of the date of the agreement but they are extended its execution for a month or two more on the asking of the plaintiffs and as they were not prepared to wait indefinitely, so they cancelled the agreement making an offer to the plain- tiffs to take back the earnest money of Rs. 7,500.00 within the one week of the receipt of the notice failing which they said they would be entitled to forfeit the earnest money and treat the agreement of sale as cancelled. The only matter that may be noted here is that in paragraph 2 of this notice the defendants refer to extensicn of time for execution of the sale deed by a month or two though they say that that was at the request of the plaintiffs. They do not say anything else or explain the circumstances in which any such request was made by the plaintiffs. To this the plaintiffs replied by a letter P. 9 of June 20, 1956. In their reply they reproduced verbatim the letter P. 7 given to them by Chuni lal Sabharwal defendants for himself and for his son Inder Raj Sabharwal defendant and then they point out that the defendants had not informed them of the receipt of sanction for transfer of the plot from the Rehabilitation Mini- stry, which, according to them, was incumbent upon them to do so, and they further clearly state that the defendants were deliberately delaying the obtaining of the sanction in spite of repeated requests to them by the plaintiffs to do so. This is a reply by the counsel for the plaintiffs to the counsel for both the defendants. The letter P. 7 is reproduced in full in it, and this explains the circumstances in which the time of one month provided in the original agreement of sale P. 6 came to be extended till the sanction for the transfer of the plot was obtained from the Rehabilita- tion Ministry, which, according to P. 7, was expected within about a month of the date of that letter. In their reply, P. 9, the plaintiffs said that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement and informed the counsel for the defendants to advise the latter that they should obtain sanction for the sale of the plot. The counsel for the defendants followed by letter P. 10 of July 4, 1956, to the counsel for the plaintiffs reiterating previous stand on behalf of the defendants and pointing out' that though the agreement of sale had become void on account of uncertainty and otherwise because of the plaintiffs not coming forth to have the execution of the sale deed in their favour, yet the defendants were still willing and ready for the execution of the sale deed within orte week of the receipt of letter P 10. after the expiry of which time, ift the plaintiffs did not have sale deed executed, they would consider the agreement of sale as terminated and would be at liberty to dispose of the plot. This letter on behalf of the defendants fixed one week of the receipt of it by the plaintiffs within which the latter could complete the sale transaction failing which the defendants terminated the agreement to sell the plot between the parties. The reply P. 11 of the counsel for the plaintiffs was made on July 12, 1956, saying that it was the duty of the defendants to give a perfect and a valid title to the plaintiffs and that the defendants had themselves admitted that they were unable to complete the execution of the sale deed without the sanction of the Rehabilitation Ministry, and then repudiated the claim of the defendants to terminate the agreement to sell the plot, although the plaintiffs had been ready and willing to take the sale of the plot according to the terms of the agreement between the parties. The next two letters, one of the counsel for the defendants (P. 12) of August 24, 1956, and the other as a reply by the counsel for the plaintiffs (P. 13) of September 12, 1956, reiterate the stands of the parties.