JAI KISHAN Vs. MEHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of IAs 6424/97 & 9492/ 97 both filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code by the plaintiff.

(2.) Plaintiff filed suit inter alia alleging that under an agreement to sell dated 10.7.1996 defendants agreed to sell their land comprised in Khasra No. 59/22 (4-16), 23(4-16) & 24/1(0-12), total measuring 10 bighas and 4 biswas situated in village Nangal Thakaran valued at the rate of Rs. 9,30,000.00 per acre. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000.00 was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants by way of advance/earnest money. As per the said agreement to sell the defendants were to obtain No Objection Certificate under the Delhi Lands (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972 and Income Tax Clearance Certificate for the purpose of executing sale deed of the land contracted to be sold to the plaintiff. Sale deed was to be executed within a year from the date of the execution of the said agreement to sell. It is further alleged that after repeated representations, defendants moved application for grant of No Objection Certificate before the Tehsilder (Notification) on 2.7.1997 and the requisite permission was granted on 4.7.1997. However, defendants intentionally withheld information about receipt of No Objection Certificate till 7.7.1997 when the defendants informed the plaintiff that they would execute the sale deed on 8.7.1997. Plaintiff believing the representation made by the defendants reached the office of the Sub-Registrar on 8.7.1997 but the defendants failed to reach there. Immediately thereafter in the evening on 8.7.1997, plaintiff contacted the defendants and enquired from them in regard to their failure to reach the office of the Sub-Registrar for execution of the sale deed. Defendants again assured the plaintiff to execute the sale deed on 9.7.1997 but they failed to reach the office of the Sub-Registrar. Again the plaintiff contacted the defendants in the evening on 9.7.1997 and asked them to execute the sale deed on the terms and conditions as set out in the aforesaid agreement to seii. Defendants again represented that they would execute the sale deed on 10.7.1997 and reach the office of the Sub-Registrar. It is further stated that the plaintiff reached the office of the Sub-Registrar in the morning on 10.7.1997 and found all the defendants present there. Plaintiff offered to make the payment of balance sale consideration of Rs. 17,76,250.00 to the defendants and asked them to append their signatures on the proposed sale deed duly typed on stamp papers of Rs. 1,58,100.00 also bearing the photographs of the plaintiff and the defendants thereon. Defendants started demanding extra money and on the plaintiff's refusal to accede to their demand the defendants left the office of the Sub-Registrar, Pitam Pura. Thereafter, plaintiff was constrained to serve a legal notice dated 11.7.1997 on the defendants requiring them to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed on or before 18.7.1997. However despite service, no reply was sent by the defendants. It was prayed that a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 10.7.1996 be passed against the defendants directing them to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land and deliver possession thereof to the plaintiff on receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs. 17,76,250.00 . In the alternative, a decree for Rs.6,11,000.00 towards damages and interest, etc. is sought to be passed against the defendants. It was further prayed that by a decree of permanent injunction defendants be restrained from transfering or parting with possession of the suit property in favour of any person other than the plaintiff.

(3.) In IA 6424/97 filed alongwith the plaint defendants were restrained by issue of an ad interim injunction from selling the suit land or parting with possession thereof in favour of a third party.