RAVI GUPTA Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/plaintiff is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 30.8.2016 passed by the learned trial court dismissing a suit for specific performance of Agreement to Sell and permanent injunction instituted against the respondents/defendants in respect of shop No.6, Ground Floor, Masjid Moth Extension, Phase-I, CSCLSC, DDA Market, Uday Park, New Delhi.

(2.) It may be noted at the outset that the impugned judgment is a common judgment where under, the learned trial court has decided two suits, one instituted by the appellant herein against Deepak Kumar & DDA and the other instituted by one Mr. Brij Pal Bhati against the appellant herein for a decree of possession and permanent injunction in respect of the very same shop (CS No. 588/2015). Both the suits have been dismissed under the impugned judgment.

(3.) The facts germane for a decision in the present appeal arising out of C.S. No. 149/2015, are that the appellant/plaintiff claims to have purchased the subject shop from the respondent No.1, who was originally allotted the same by the respondent No.2/DDA, on 30.10.2004. The agreed sale consideration in respect of the shop was Rs.13,00,000.00. The appellant claims to have paid a total sum of Rs.10,50,000.00 to the respondent No.1 against acknowledgment and states that respondent No.1 had handed over peaceful possession thereof to him along with an allotment letter issued in his favour by the respondent No.2/DDA. It was orally agreed between the appellant and the respondent No.1 that the latter will get the shop converted from leasehold to freehold and complete all other formalities required by the respondent No.2/DDA for a formal sale deed to be executed in his favour and at that time, he would pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000.00 to the respondent No.1. After taking possession of the subject shop from the respondent No.1, the appellant had got the electricity and telephone connection etc. in his name and he continues to occupy the shop till date. It has been pleaded that the appellant kept on contacting the respondent No.1 from time to time to complete the formalities of conversion of the shop to freehold and for execution and registration of the sale deed, but he kept on stalling, thus leaving no option available with him but to institute a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction etc.