ASHOK K MITTAL Vs. RAM KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASHOK Kumar Mittal filed a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell stated to have been entered into by him with Ram Kumar gupta and Savita Gupta wife of Ram Kumar Gupta. It was pleaded in the plaint that Ashok Kumar Mittal is a doctor and was wanting a residential plot in a developing area wherein he could reside and also carry on business after constructing a residential house. He stated that Ram Kumar Gupta and his wife savita Gupta were his distant relative and owned plot No. 58 ad-measuring 205. 23 square meters in Block C , Pocket -8, Sector 17, Dwarka and that in the 3rd week of June 2003 when he visited a property dealer Kumar Properties at Sector 17, Dwarka he chanced to meet Ram Kumar Gupta from whom he learnt that Ram Kumar gupta and his wife were desirous of selling the plot owned by them. He stated that after discussions, price of the plot was fixed at Rs. 12,50,000/- (Rupees twelve Lac Fifty Thousand ). He stated that the deal was finalized through the property dealer Kumar Properties. He stated that on 13. 7. 2003 he paid Rs. 10 lacs to the defendants vide cheque No. 191873 drawn on Syndicate Bank, R. K. Puram in the name of Ram Kumar Gupta and received photocopies of the title documents from Ram Kumar Gupta. He stated that it was agreed that balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Fifty Thousand) would be payable at the time of execution of the sale documents. It was stated that on 15. 7. 2003 an agreement to sell was drafted by the counsel for Ram Kumar Gupta and his wife and was sent to him for approval and that he incorporated modifications in the draft and returned the same to Ram Kumar Gupta. He further stated that on 7. 8. 2003, at the asking of Ram Kumar Gupta and his wife he paid a sum of Rs. 1 lac by cheque to them by issuing a cheque in the name of Ram Kumar Gupta. He stated that in the last week of August 2003 the cheque in sum of Rs. 10 lacs given by him to Ram Kumar Gupta was returned by Ram Kumar Gupta, stating that ram Kumar Gupta and his wife have back tracked from the agreement and that he was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed, claim for the agreement to be enforced by a decree was made.

(2.) RAM Kumar Gupta and his wife admitted the close relationship between the parties but denied any agreement for sale of the plot in question. Receipt of the cheque in sum of Rs. 10 lac is denied. Receipt of sum of Rs. 1 lac under the cheque dated 7. 8. 2003 was denied. Receipt and exchange of draft agreements to sell was denied. Photocopies of the title documents of the plot in the hands of Ashok Kumar Mittal was explained by stating that as per the terms of the perpetual lease under which perpetual lease hold rights were acquired by them under DDA a building had to be constructed within 3 years which period expired in the month of August 2002. It was stated that in April 2003 when Ram Kumar Gupta was sitting in the office of Atul Kumar Mittal, a practicing chartered accountant who is the younger brother of Ashok Kumar mittal, discussions were held how to proceed in the matter to seek extension of time from DDA for construction. It was stated that whereupon Atul Kumar Mittal said that his brother Ashok Kumar Mittal was a successful doctor and had a lot of contacts and offered that through Ashok Kumar Mittal necessary work could be done at the office of DDA by using contacts in DDA and for said purpose photocopy of the title documents were handed over to Atul Kumar Mittal together with signed copies of the requisite applications. It was pleaded that it was inconceivable for them to have agreed to sell the plot of land having a market value of about Rs. 38 lacs for a petty amount of Rs. 12. 5 lacs.

(3.) NEEDLESS to state the only material issue which arose for consideration at the trial between the parties was whether the parties had entered into an agreement to sell as alleged by Ashok Kumar Mittal.