SURJIT SINGH BHATIA Vs. TEJ RAJ SINGH GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An unsuccessful plaintiff whose suit for decree for specific performance was dismissed, appeals the decision of a learned single judge.

(2.) The facts, to the extent they are uncontroverted, are that the plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property i.e. D -104 Defense Colony (hereafter "the suit property") on 27.06.2008. The total consideration agreed to be paid to the defendants by the plaintiff was Rs.15.80crores in terms of the agreement to sell -which was exhibited in court during the trial as Ex. PW -1/2, the plaintiff did pay the sum of Rupees one crore, at the time of execution of the agreement and also that the further sum of Rs.60 lakhs was paid on 05.08.2008. According to the plaintiff a further amount of Rs.5 lakhs was paid to a representative of the defendant vendors. This was disputed; likewise the plaintiff's assertion that he paid Rupees one lakh a day before entering into the agreement to sell was also disputed. Two conditions stipulated in the agreement are important: one that the entire transaction was to be completed within 100 days or in other words on or before the 06.10.2008. The second condition was that since the suit property belongs to Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), the "No objection certificate" (NOC, hereafter) of other members of the family or coparceners was to be obtained before execution of the sale deed.

(3.) In the suit the plaintiff alleged that despite stipulation of a specific date (for completion of the sale transaction) which was the essence of the contract, the defendant did not honor his commitments in that the NOCs of the coparceners were not made available. Furthermore the coparceners were not in India at the time the Agreement to Sell was entered into. It was alleged that the defendant unilaterally granted a one -time extension to the plaintiff alleging that the latter was in default of compliance with the terms of the agreement in its letter of 08.10.2008; the extension was up to 15.11.2008. The plaintiff protested the letter contending that he was always ready and willing to perform his contract and highlighted that the defendant on the other hand had not complied with the time requirements. The plaintiff alleged further in the suit that in accordance with the agreement and in order to facilitate compliance he had applied -on behalf of the defendants to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ("MCD") for appropriate clearance in respect of the construction on the suit property. The suit mentioned a notice of 04.12.2008 to the defendant drawing attention to a condition of the agreement i.e. cl. 14 which highlighted that time was the essence of the contract and the parties were bound to adhere to it. The defendant on the other hand submitted that the plaintiff did not make any specific commitments as regards the date and time by which all members of the HUF would be available in New Delhi for completion of the sale transaction and executing the registered sale deed. It was submitted that in this background of circumstances the so -called extension of time was entirely sham and bogus and that the defendant deliberately took no steps to discharge his obligations. The plaintiff wrote a letter on 15.01.2009 protesting against the defendant's conduct and alleged about having suffered losses; the plaintiff also complained about the defendant's lack of interest in performing their obligations.