SOBHAG NARAIN MATHUR Vs. PRAGYA AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has, for a decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell, entered into with the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, contained in a 'Bayana Receipt' dated 7.12.2006. The plaintiff claims to be a businessman settled in Rajasthan, wanting to purchase of commercial property in Delhi to expand his business.

(2.) HE claims having come into contact with Defendant No. 2 thorough a real estate agent. Defendant No. 1 is the first defendant's wife; she is the agreement purchaser of commercial plots bearing Nos. A, B, C and D, Local Shopping Centre, Madangir, Delhi (the suit property). Defendant No. 1, it is alleged is the de facto owner of the suit property and had the legal authority to deal with the same on the basis of the said documents.

(3.) ACCORDING to the 'Bayana Receipt', it is alleged, the defendants represented that defendant No. 1 was the owner of plot Nos. A, B, C and D, Local Shopping Centre, Madangir, New Delhi, that the area of each of the plot was 82.5 square metres, totally admeasuring 330 square metres. The receipt further states that 'Pragya Aggarwal' i.e. defendant No. 1 agreed to sell to Sh. Section N. Mathur (plaintiff), for consideration of Rs. 6 crores 20 lacs, the suit property. She further acknowledged receipt of the Bayana amount i.e. the earnest money of Rs. 20 lacs and it has been agreed that the balance payment of Rs. 6 crores would be made by 15,2.2007. The document records that instalments towards part payment would be settled at the time of making complete payment of earnest money of 10%, and that the first defendant would be responsible for removal of the Tea Shop, Tyre Repair Vendor and Mechanic who were squatting in front of the suit property. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant No. 1 further recorded that 'Pakka Agreement' would be executed on 14.12.2006 on receipt of the 10% of the consideration.