SUDHIR KUMAR Vs. VIRENDER KUMAR GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Caveat No.198/2018

(2.) The subject suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff pleading that an agreement to sell dated 26.9.2005 was entered into by which the respondent/defendant agreed to sell to the appellant/plaintiff the suit property bearing no. H-14, Shivaji Park, New Delhi-110026. An amount of Rs.7 lacs was paid as an earnest money under the agreement to sell and thus the balance sale consideration which remained payable was the amount of Rs.59 lacs. The balance sale consideration as per the appellant/plaintiff was to be paid by 27.12.2005, whereas the case of the respondent/defendant was that the said date was 27.11.2005. Appellant/plaintiff claimed that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract but the respondent/defendant failed to execute the sale deed of the suit property in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, and therefore after serving the legal notice dated 8.12.2005, the subject suit was filed.

(3.) Written statement was filed by the respondent/defendant wherein it is not dispute that the agreement to sell dated 27.9.2005 was entered into between the parties, but it was slender that the date of performance was 27.11.2005 which is specifically stated in the agreement and not the date of the 27.12.2005 which was the case of the appellant/plaintiff. It was pleaded in the written statement that the period of 90 days mention in the agreement to sell was a typographical error and the agreement was for payment of the balance sale consideration to the respondent/defendant by 27.11.2005, but since the same was not done, therefore the appellant/plaintiff was guilty of breach of contract and hence not entitled to the relief of specific performance.