RITU SAXENA Vs. J S GROVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed the instant suit for specific performance in respect of the apartment bearing No.27 2, Gulmohar Enclave, New Delhi. It is an apartment on the ground floor of the suit property. The suit is filed against the two defendants who are husband and wife and are stated to be the joint owners of the said apartment. The husband of the plaintiff is residing along with the plaintiff in the said property since 1st September, 2002. The husband of the plaintiff is an employee of GE Capital and the premises in question were let out to his employer for his occupation. It is alleged that in the middle of the year 2004, the defendants began to express a desire to sell the suit property and told the plaintiff that they were looking for a suitable buyer. As the plaintiff was also desirous for purchasing a residential property, she offered to buy this apartment at the current prevailing market price. After negotiations, the plaintiff ultimately agreed to purchase the suit property at Rs.50 lacs. The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.1 lac which was deposited into the joint account of the defendants. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that in furtherance of this agreement, the plaintiff was put in possession of the premises in question. The plaintiff also applied for a housing loan to ICICI Bank which was duly sanctioned vide letter dated 30th July, 2004 As she was already in possession of the property and the prospective buyer thereof, she invested significant amount to improve and develop the said apartment. However, in spite of the plaintiff's contacting the defendants time and again and expressing her readiness and willingness to complete the transaction, the defendants dilly- dallied the matter. The plaintiff has narrated the circumstances on the basis of which she claims that the intentions of the defendants became dishonest. Therefore, the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 19th April, 2005 which was duly delivered to the defendants. However, the defendants instead of complying with the demand in the said notice, sent a reply dated 27th April, 2005, dispatched on 12th May, 2005 through their counsel Mr.Himanshu Bajaj taking unjust and frivolous stand which has no basis in law and, therefore, present suit is filed for specific performance.

(2.) The defendants have filed separate written statements contesting the suit to which the plaintiff has filed replications. However, at this stage, present application is filed by the defendant No.2 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action. Various pleas are taken in support of this ground.

(3.) Mr. D. R. Bhatia and Mr. K. C. Bajaj, counsel appearing for the defendants state that even if the alleged Agreement to Sell is taken at its face value, it is not binding and has no legal validity in the eyes of law in view of the following:-