BHARTI RANI SINGH Vs. RAJINDER SINGH BEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated September 27, 1978 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the suit filed by deceased plaintiff Smt. Bharti Rani Singh against the respondents No. 1 to 5 who were defendants, for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated February 20, 1961 has been dismissed. However, a decree for refund of Rs. 89,678.41P. after disallowing the refund of earnest money of Rs. 17,000.00 has been passed in her favour.

(2.) The said plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance against the present respondents 1 to 5 alleging that Late Shri K.R. Bedi, the father of the respondent R.S. Bedi had entered into an agreement to sell dated February 20, 1961 for sale of property bearing Plot No. 18, Block No. 39, Kautilya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 2,37,000.00 . Out of sale consideration a sum of Rs. 17,000.00 was paid as earnest money. Inter-alia, it was agreed that sale deed was to be executed within 6 months, after obtaining the permission to sell from the Chief Commissioner (the lessor), in the name of plaintiff vendee or her nominee or nominees, the land of the property being a leasehold one. It was further alleged that besides the earnest money of Rs. 17,000.00 another sum of Rs. 5,225.00 was also paid by the plaintiff on 28.7.1961 to Late Shri K.R. Bedi., Shri K.R. Bedi died in August, 1961 without executing the sale deed leaving behind his widow Smt. Somawanti, three sons, one dghter and a son of a pre-deceased daughter. Smt. Somawanti also died subsequently in the year 1971 and the respondents No. 1 to 5 are the heirs of Late Shri K.R. Bedi as well as of his widow late Smt. Somawanti. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the death of Shri K.R. Bedi, the defendants had confirmed the terms and conditions of the said agreement to sell and the plaintiff further paid to them a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 on 8th October, 1961, Rs. 25,000.00 on 20.4.1965, Rs. 25,000.00 on 29.5.1965, Rs. 4,751.00 , Rs. 1,600.00 and another sum of Rs. 10,000.00 on 8.3.1966, i.e., a total sum of Rs. 66,351.00 , on their asking for enabling them to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff had also paid other sums of Rs. 25,833.00 and Rs. 1102.41 to the Land and Development Officer (for short L&DO) as government shere in the unearned increase in the value of the land and on behalf of the defendants as per their directions. In this way in all the plaintiff had paid Rs. 94,678.41 partly to Shri K.R. Bedi and partly to his heirs towards the sale consideration besides Rs. 25,833.00 + Rs. 1102.41 paid to the L&DO. The defendants failed to execute the sale deed after complying with the requirements of obtaining permissions and certificates from authorities in respect of Income Tax, Wealth Tax etc. and also from the L&DO; 25th July, 1969 the defendants again made a demand of Rs. 15,000.00 for enabling them to obtain Income Tax Clearance Certificate and other documents to execute the sale deed and against this demand a sum of rs. 12,000.00 was paid to defendant No. 1 on 25.7.1969. The defendants never informed if they had obtained `No Objection Certificate' from the Taxation authorities nor if requisite permission had been obtained from the L&DO. The defendants on 25.7.1969 had agreed to execute the sale deed by 25.9.1969 but they did not do so. The plaintiff accordingly filed suit for a decree for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement. In the alternative a decree for recovery of Rs. 2,12,000.00 as damages was also claimed.

(3.) Defendants No. 1 to 4 (respondents No. 1 to 4 herein) filed the written statement and contested the suit. It was not disputed that the deceased Shri K.R. Bedi had executed the agreement to sell in question for a consideration of Rs. 2,37,000.00 and out of it having received Rs. 17,000.00 as earnest money. They had also not disputed the receipt of various payments made by the plaintiff as aforesaid. However, it was alleged that it was plaintiff who was not ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement and to get the sale deed executed. It was also alleged that vide letter dated 25th July, 1969 sent by the defendants through their Advocate it was notified to the plaintiff that the sale deed must be completed and registered within one month from the date of obtaining the No Objection Certificate from the Taxation Authorities; this certificate was obtained on 6.8.1969 and the plaintiff was immediately informed about it. But the plaintiff was not ready and willing to complete the sale deed by paying the balance sale consideration and then by notice dated 8.11.1969 the defendants informed the plaintiff that she had committed the breach of the agreement and so they had forfeited all moneys paid by her or on her behalf. Defendants thus alleged that it was the plaintiff who had committed the breach of the agreement whereas the plaintiff put the blame on the defendants.