SARABJEET SINGH Vs. ANUP SHARMA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (i) This is a suit for specific performance of entire property being plot no.D -16 -G, Block No.D, admeasuring 247 -9/10 sq. yds, in the residential colony known as Hauz Khas Enclave, situated at Village Kharera on Delhi Qutub Road in the state of Delhi except the first floor portion. Plaintiff is the proposed purchaser namely Sh. Sarabjeet Singh.

(2.) As per the plaint, the plaintiff pleads that defendants, reference to the defendants being also to Sh. Badri Nath Sharma wherever context so requires inasmuch as Sh. Badri Nath Sharma died after entering into an agreement to sell, committed breach of contract by refusing to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. Plaintiff avers that plaintiff found that Sh. Badri Nath Sharma had mortgaged his second floor portion of the suit property to Punjab National Bank for a loan and therefore the agreement to sell with Sh. Badri Nath Sharma could not be fructified because in terms of the agreement to sell the plaintiff was to receive the portion of Sh. Badri Nath Sharma unencumbered. Plaintiff also pleads that one daughter and daughter -in -law of late Sh. Badri Nath Sharma, defendant no. 5 and 6 in the present suit namely Smt. Manju Sharma and Smt. Anita Sharma, issued and sent to the plaintiff and the Sub -Registrar, Mehrauli Legal Notices dated 23.6.2006 stating that they were the co -owners of the suit property and that therefore Sh. Badri Nath Sharma could not have entered into agreement to sell with the plaintiff representing that Sh. Badri Nath Sharma was the sole owner of his portion of the property. Plaintiff further pleads that on account of these frauds committed by Sh. Badri Nath Sharma, plaintiff was forced to lodge complaint with the police on 1.8.2006 stating that since plaintiff has been defrauded and cheated, action be taken against defendant nos. 1 to 3 in the present suit as also against late Sh. Badri Nath Sharma. Plaintiff alleges that plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform the agreements to sell and the memorandum of understanding of the same date, and therefore, the suit for specific performance be decreed.

(3.) Written statements have been filed. One written statement is filed by defendant nos. 1 to 3 who are the signatories to the Agreement to Sell dated 19.6.2006 with respect to the ground floor portion. Another written statement is filed by defendant nos. 4, 7 and 8, and who are the three legal heirs (being the son, daughter -in -law and grandson) of late Sh. Badri Nath Sharma. The grandson Sh. Ashit Sharma/defendant no. 7, in addition to pleading that the plaintiff is guilty of breach of contract and hence not being entitled to specific performance and also that plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform the contract, also pleads that late Sh. Badri Nath Sharma on 5.9.2006 executed a registered Gift Deed with respect to the second floor and terrace portion of the property in favour of defendant no. 7 transferring Sh. Badri Nath Sharmas right in the suit property to the defendant no. 7. Written statement has also been filed by defendant no. 9/Smt. Renu Sharma pleading that Sh. Badri Nath Sharma had no right to sell the suit property as the suit property was ancestral and therefore Sh. Badri Nath Sharma was only one co -owner of the suit property and not the sole owner of the suit property, and which was the stand also taken by the defendant nos. 5 and 6 (who have not filed any written statements) by issuing their Legal Notices dated 23.6.2006 to the plaintiff.