NEELAM CHHABRA Vs. RASHMI GUPTA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 23.12.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant/plaintiff with respect to the Agreement to Sell dated 27.2.2004 for half portion of the property bearing no. F-36, DSIDC Industrial Complex, Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110041. Though trial court has dismissed the suit for specific performance but the trial court has granted a money decree to the appellant/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum as this was the amount paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 under the agreement to sell.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 entered into the subject Agreement to Sell dated 27.2004 for the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.44,50,000/-. An amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 at the time of entering into the agreement to sell and further amounts totaling to Rs.7,00,000/- were paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 in March,2004 thereby totaling to a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent no.1/defendant no.1. Appellant/plaintiff claimed that respondent no.1/defendant no.1 committed breach and did not execute the sale deed of the suit property in favour of the appellant/plaintiff in spite of the fact that appellant/plaintiff had issued various letters and notices.

(3.) The suit was opposed by the respondent nos.1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 2. Respondent no.1/defendant no.1 is the wife of the respondent no.2/defendant no.2. It was pleaded in the written statement that appellant/plaintiff is guilty of making interpolation in the Agreement to Sell dated 27.2.2004 (Ex.PW1/4) because the expression "within 4 months" in para 2 of the agreement to sell of payment having to be made by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 was illegally scored out and the actual facts are that the appellant/plaintiff had to complete the transaction by making payment of the balance amount on or before 27.6.2004 but the appellant/plaintiff failed to complete the transaction as appellant/plaintiff did not have the balance sale consideration. It was pleaded that respondent no.1/defendant no.1 wrote her letters dated 2.6.2004 and 15.6.2004 to the appellant/plaintiff to pay the balance amount before 27.6.2004, but in spite of receipt of these letters the appellant/plaintiff failed to complete the transaction before the last due date of 27.6.2004. It was pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform part of the agreement as she could not arrange the balance sale consideration. Suit was therefore prayed to be dismissed.