IKRAMUDDIN Vs. HAKIMUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 17th April, 2014 of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ) -I, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi of dismissal of CS No. 92/2013 bearing Unique ID No. 02402C0303492012 filed by the appellant on 19th October, 2012 for specific performance of Agreement dated 18th August, 2000 of sale of immovable property and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent / defendant from selling, alienating or creating third party interest in the said immovable property consequent to rejection on an application of the respondent / defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) of the plaint.

(2.) Notice of the appeal was issued and the matter adjourned from time to time; though the Trial Court record has been requisitioned but the appeal has not been admitted for hearing as yet. Vide ad -interim order dated 30th January, 2015, the parties were directed to maintain status quo qua title and possession of the property. Today, the counsel for the respondent seeks adjournment. However, being prima facie of the view that there is no error in the order of the learned ADJ of rejecting the plaint on the ground of the relief claimed therein as per averments in the plaint being barred by time, the counsel for the appellant / plaintiff has been heard and the Trial Court record perused.

(3.) The appellant / plaintiff instituted the suit from which this appeal arises claiming i) that the respondent / defendant on 18th August, 2000 entered into an agreement titled Ikrarnama with the appellant / plaintiff for sale of shop measuring 11x23 feet out of property measuring 18x23 feet, Khasra No. 87 -88 forming part of property No. B -II -A, Gali No. 3, Jyoti Colony, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi -110 032 for a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/ -; ii) that according to the agreement, the appellant / plaintiff paid Rs. 1,00,000/ - as earnest money and the balance sale consideration of Rs. 6,50,000/ - was to be paid in two instalments by 15th March, 2001; iii) accordingly, the appellant / plaintiff made a payment of Rs. 50,000/ - on 11th October, 2000 and the further payment of Rs. 5,90,000/ - on 3rd March, 2001 and the respondent / defendant issued a receipt of Rs. 7,40,000/ -, leaving a balance of Rs. 10,000/ - to be paid at the time of execution of title documents by the respondent / defendant in favour of the appellant / plaintiff before the Registrar; iv) that the appellant / plaintiff even prior to entering into the agreement was in possession of the shop agreed to be sold, as a tenant, since the year 1987; v) that it was a term of the agreement that the respondent / defendant will increase the height of the shop in question by three feet and will put a lintel on the same and for this purpose only Rs. 1,00,000/ - was paid as earnest money; vi) that the respondent / defendant despite receipt of Rs. 7,40,000/ - out of total sale consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/ - and despite repeated requests neither executed the title documents nor increased the height of the shop and "the respondent / defendant has lingered on the same by one pretext or the other"; vii) that "now the appellant / plaintiff came to know from the neighbours that respondent / defendant with his mala fide intention to get more money, wants to dispose of the shop in favour of some third person"; viii) that on receipt of aforesaid information on 16th October, 2012, the appellant / plaintiff again went to the respondent / defendant and requested him to fulfil his part of the agreement but the respondent / defendant refused; ix) that the appellant / plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement; x) that the cause of action for filing the suit arose in favour of the appellant / plaintiff and against the respondent / defendant firstly on 18th August, 2000, from "time to time as and when the appellant / plaintiff made request to the respondent / defendant for executing title documents in his favour in respect of the shop in question against Rs. 10,000/ - remaining consideration before the Sub -Registrar concerned" and on 16th October, 2012 when the appellant / plaintiff called upon the respondent / defendant to execute the documents.