SURINDER GROVER Vs. SHEELA SAHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 14th January, 1985 relating to property bearing plot No.G-1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi issues had been framed on 25th July, 1991 and it has been ordered that issue No.4 be heard as a preliminary issue. Issue No.4, reads as under:-

(2.) It is submitted by Mr. Makhija, counsel for the plaintiff that Section 269 UC of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is not attracted since it is an agreement to sell the property, specific performance whereof is claimed in the suit and the consideration is more than Rs.5 lakhs. That in the present case the agreement is dated 14th January, 1985 and Section 269 UC of the Act came into force in 1987. That apart from the relief of specific performance, the suit of the plaintiff is for compensation and damages and suit would be maintainable and the question of non maintainability of the suit will not come in the way of the plaintiff.

(3.) As against this, it is submitted by Mr. R.G.Srivastava, counsel appearing for defendants 1 to 3 that Section 269 UC of the Act contains mandatory requirement and under Section 269 UC of the Act transfer is prohibited in absence of the compliance with the requirement of obtaining Income-tax Clearance Certificate. That there is no time limit for the validity of the certificate under Section 269 of the Act. That the agreement is not a contract and the suit is not maintainable.