RAVI SOOD Vs. VIR BALA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance of agreement to sell dated May 10, 1978 entered into between the defendant as the Vendor and the plaintiffs as Vendees in respect of the property known as plot No.G-47 Block No.6, Green Park, New Delhi.

(2.) The facts as enumerated in the plaint are that the defendant by means of an agreement dated May 10, 1978 agreed to make sale of the aforesaid plot to the plaintiff for total consideration of Rs.1,70,000.00 out of which a sum of Rs.5,000.00 was paid by means of cheque No.SB/031386 dated May 8, 1978 drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. The said payment was made as alleged earnest money and part sale consideration which was accepted by the defendant. The agreement to sell was entered into between the parties in writing and signed by plaintiff No.1 for self and on behalf of his wife plaintiff No.2 and the defendant appended the signatures on each page of the agreement. The defendant enshed the aforesaid cheque of Rs.5,000.00 and acknowledged having received the amount in consideration of the agreement to sell.In terms of the covenants contained in the agreement, defendant was to obtain the necessary permission from the Competent Authority and was to deliver actual and physical possession of the property to the plaintiff at the time of registration of the sale deed and was to receive the balance consideration amount of Rs.1,65,000.00 before the Sub Registrar at the time of presentation of the Sale Deed for its admission of execution and registration. The defendant assured plaintiffs that the plot in question was self acquired and free from all encumbrances and there was no charge, lien etc. in respect of the same. The defendant further undertook that she would obtain `No Objection Certificate' from the Competent Authority as envisaged in terms of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and she would obtain necessary income tax clearance from the authorities concerned and after having obtained the same she would intimate to the plaintiffs accordingly and would get the sale deed executed from the said date within a period of 30 days thereof. The relevant facts and pleadings are contained in paragraphs 9,10,11,12 and 13 of the plaint which may be reproduced as follows:

(3.) It is next alleged that the plaintiff received a notice dated March 29, 1979 through counsel for the defendant whereby she came with the position for the first time that she was not going to execute the sale deed and this act of defendant has been alleged as tantamount to refusal to execute the Deed. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendants had played fraud on them as also on the Competent Authority by managing and manevouring the refusal of permission under the provisions of the Act and as a consequence the plaintiffs filed a complaint under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the defendant on the grounds that she had cheated the plaintiffs. The complaint subsequently in the ultimate analysis was dismissed and the defendant was discharged by the Court of Shri O.P.Gogne, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi vide his judgment dated August 30, 1984.