SUMITA ROY Vs. GIANI RAM (DECEASED) THR LRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. Appl. No. 44923/2018 (for exemption)

(2.) For the reasons stated in the applications, delays in filing and re-filing the appeal are condoned, subject to just exceptions.

(3.) 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 18.05.2018. The suit which was filed by the appellant/plaintiff originally was a suit seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 02.01.1989 wherein the case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the suit property comprising of 13 Bighas and 15 Biswas of land situated in the village and P.O. Pansali, District Delhi (approximately 14,000/- sq. yards of land) was agreed to be sold to the appellant/plaintiff by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and the predecessors of defendant no. 3, now defendant nos. 3 and 4 in the suit, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/-. The original suit plaint was filed on 10.02006 and thereafter the suit plaint was amended in January, 2017 for claiming compensation granted by the Government for acquiring the suit land as the suit land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in terms of a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 27.10.1999 and with respect to which an Award No. 4/2002-03 dated 004.2002 was passed. In essence, therefore, the suit after amendment became a suit for seeking compensation paid by the government of the acquired land which was agreed to be purchased by the appellant/plaintiff under the Agreement to Sell dated 02.01.1989. The trial court has dismissed the suit by holding the suit to be time barred and the agreement to sell being incapable of specific performance as the suit land has been acquired. In fact, it was the appellant/plaintiff who is guilty of breach of contract and hence not entitled to specific performance.