MANTA RAM Vs. RAM BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In North Delhi there is a sprawling locality known as Paharganj where there is a place known by the name of Laddoo Ghati. It is interspersed with residential houses as well as commercial establishments. In that Ladoo Ghati is a shop bearing private number 93 Municipal No. 4804. Ram Babu owns that shop. Not long time back he used to sit there and prepare and sell Indian sweet meats. As his business did not flourish he decided to wind it up and to sell away the shop. On June 4,1980 he entered into an agreement of sale of the shop with Manta Ram. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 1,25,000.00 out of which a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 in cash was paid towards advance. The sale deed was to be executed by the 5th of July, 1980 on which date he was to receive the balance consideration of Rs. 1,20,000 .00 and to deliver vacant possession of the shop. That shop is now at the centre-storm of this suit instituted by Manta Ram against Ram Babu for specific performance of the said agreement of sale. He alleges that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and that it was Ram Babu who had frustrated the fructification of the agreement into a sale.

(2.) Ram Babu, however, states that Manta Ram was in fact never ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and much before July 5, 1980 he had told the property dealer, through whose good offices the agreement of sale had been executed, that sale price being too high he would like to wriggle out of the transaction. In short thus as per Ram Babu if the agreement has not led to the final execution of a sale deed it is Manta Ram who is to be blamed for and not he and that realising that Manta Ram was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and the shop was let out and later a fresh agreement of sale was entered into with a third person.

(3.) The summom bonum of the pleadings being as noticed above it is time to refer to the issues framed. They are as under: