PARVEEN GARG Vs. SATPAL SINGH & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Caveat No. 432/2018

(2.) (I) 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 27.1.2018 by which trial court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 1.9.2003/Ex.PW1/1 and the Compromise Agreement dated 24.11.2004/Ex.PW1/5, pertaining to property no. 3/153, Sunder Vihar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, measuring 133 sq. yards. Trial court by the impugned judgment has however passed a money decree for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of the appellant/plaintiff along with interest at 12% per annum on account of this amount having been paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 under the subject agreement to sell.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff pleaded that the Agreement to Sell dated 1.9.2003 was entered into for sale of the suit property in favour of appellant/plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.33,25,000/-. Appellant/plaintiff and his father are Government contractors engaged in the business of construction and were on look out for a property. As per the plaint, on the date of entering into of the agreement to sell, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash was paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondents/defendants as earnest money. On the next day being 2.9.2003, a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in cash was paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1. The sale transaction, as per the appellant/plaintiff, was to be completed by 1.11.2003 and this was subject to the respondents/defendants getting converted the property from leasehold to freehold. Appellant/plaintiff has pleaded that he was never shown the title deeds of the suit property and he requested the respondents/defendants to give him the copies of the title deeds as also certificate of conversion from leasehold to freehold so that the transaction could be completed, and to which the respondents/defendants stated that on account of unavoidable circumstances in the short period, the permission could not be obtained for converting the property from leasehold to freehold. In the plaint it is further pleaded that in April, 2004 the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 called the appellant/plaintiff to his residence and informed the appellant/plaintiff that it is not the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 who is the sole owner of the suit property but that both the respondents/defendants are joint owners. Appellant/plaintiff pleads that a further sum of Rs.8,00,000/- was demanded from him and since the appellant/plaintiff was interested in completing the transaction, therefore he paid in cash a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 9.4.2004 and prepared a bank draft dated 10.4.2004 of Rs.7,95,000/-, and asked the respondents/defendants to show the title deeds of the suit property before handing over the bank draft, but since the copies of the title deeds were not shown to the appellant/plaintiff, therefore the bank draft was not handed over to the respondents/defendants.