C L JAIN Vs. RAGHUBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed this suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 17th April. 1995. He alleged that vide this agreement, defendant Raghubir Singh agreed to sell him his 1/4th share in agricultural land in Khasra No.51/25(4-12), 28(0-4), 76/5 (4-16), 76/6 (4-16), 76/15(4-16), 76/16(4-4) situated in Village Dera Mandi, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi for a sum of Rs.35,64,583/-. The 1/4th share comes to 5 Bighas and 17 Biswas. The land was agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs.29,50,000/- per acre. The plaintiff, in pursuance of the above agreement to sell, paid a sum of Rs.8,80,000/- towards part of the sale consideration, in advance between 17th February, 1995 and 20th December, 1995 in cash. The balance sale consideration of Rs.26,84,583/- was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Simultaneously, the possession of the land was to be handed over to the plaintiff. It is submitted that defendant was to obtain No Objection Certificate from Revenue Authorities, income tax clearance certificate from Income Tax Department and other requisite permission for sale of the land to the plaintiff. The sale deed was to be executed thereafter. The defendant, however, did not obtain 'No Objection Certificate' and other clearances/ permission to sell despite requests by plaintiff and this amounted to refusal on the part of the defendant in performing his part of the contract. The plaintiff thereafter sent a notice dated 19.2.1997 through his counsel to the defendant calling upon defendant to perform his part of contractual obligation by obtaining requisite clearance and permission from competent authorities and executing 'sale deed' in favour of the plaintiff, simultaneously receiving the balance consideration and handing over of the possession. However, the notice evoked no response from the defendant. Rather the defendant refused to receive the notice. The plaintiff served another notice dated 12th March, 1997 with similar request. This was also refused to be received by the defendant. It is submitted that plaintiff had always been willing and ready to perform his part of the contract while defendant failed to perform his part of the contract. Hence the suit. A prayer is made for passing a decree for specific performance directing defendant to execute the sale deed and hand over the possession, after obtaining necessary permissions. Plaintiff also prayed for injunction against the defendant restraining defendant from selling or alienating the property in question.

(2.) The defendant filed the written statement and took the stand that there was no agreement dated 17th February, 1995 entered between plaintiff and defendant and the suit was barred by provisions of Specific Relief Act. However, the defendant did admit that defendant was owner of 1/4th share in the agricultural land as stated in the plaint. Defendant denied that any payment was made by the plaintiff in furtherance of agreement dated 17th February, 1995 and took the stand that the said agreement was no agreement in the eyes of law. The question of payment of balance consideration by the plaintiff and execution of the sale deed by defendant or obtaining necessary clearances did not arise because of the fact that the agreement was not a valid agreement.

(3.) In the replication, plaintiff reiterated the stand taken by him and submitted that the defendant had executed the receipts of the amount received by him and had also executed the agreement to sell. Defendant had taken false stand in the written statement.