YOGESH TYAGI Vs. KELA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT who was the plaintiff, had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, Ex. PW-1/1, stated to have been executed by the defendant i. e. the respondent in the appeal on 19. 10. 2004, agreeing to sell to him the property referred to in the agreement, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 16,50,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), out of which Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only), was stated to have been paid, as recorded in the agreement, as part sale consideration when Ex. PW-1/1 was executed. It was pleaded that the agreement recorded that the respondent would execute the sale deed by 15. 2. 2005 and that the appellant made an attempt twice to tender the balance sale consideration of Rs. 13,50,000/- on 24. 2. 2005 and 10. 3. 2005; receiving no response from the respondent when she did not even respond to a legal notice dated 24. 3. 2005, Ex. PW-1/3, the appellant had no option but to file the suit.

(2.) FIRST prayer made in the suit was to specifically enforce the contract between the parties. Alternate prayer was that if specific performance was not granted, as per Clause 1 of the agreement, which stipulated that if respondent did not comply with her obligations she would pay double the amount of part sale consideration received, a decree in sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) be granted in his favour.

(3.) DEFENCE taken in the written statement was of a complete denial. The respondent denied having executed any agreement to sell, much less ex. PW-1/1. It was pleaded that the appellant was a tenant under the respondent in respect of one room in the subject property and had earned the confidence of the respondent who required a separate electricity connection, for which, the appellant obtained signatures of the respondent on blank papers. It was pleaded that Ex. PW-1/1 was created by using the blank stamp paper on which the respondent had affixed her signatures.