S.K. MITTAL Vs. KALINGA ESTATE (P) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff sues the defendant for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property, being Ground Floor of B-31, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi (hereafter "the suit property ").

(2.) THE suit averments are that the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendants, on 21st July 1996, whereby the former agreed to purchase the suit property. The Plaintiff alleges having agreed to purchase the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,17,000/- (Rupees one crore, seventeen thousand only). The agreement has been marked as Ex. PW-1/1-A. It is submitted that, a sum of Rs. ten lakhs seventy thousand (Rs. 10,70,000/-) was paid in cash, and Rs. One lakh (Rs. 1,00,000/-) was paid through pay order, drawn on Karnataka Bank, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi, at the time of signing of the agreement to sell. Copy of the receipt has been marked as Ex. PW-1/2. The terms of this agreement, also stipulated that the balance amount was to be paid by the plaintiff, by 5th August 1996, subject to the defendants securing permissions under Section 37-I and Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, which were mandatory at that point in time. The plaintiff adverts to reminding the defendants to comply with these requirements, through letters dated 26th July, 1996 and 31st July, 1996; true copies of those letters are marked as Ex. PW-1/3 and Ex. PW-1/4. Postal receipts have been marked as Ex. PW-1/5 and Ex. PW-1/5A.

(3.) THE plaintiff says that by registered letter dated 04.01.1997 (Ex. PW-1/7) he extended the time for performance of the agreement to sell, by a further ten months, from January, 1997. He alleges that even at the end of the ten-month period, the defendants did nothing to pursue the matter, and instead, sought more time, in October, 1998. The plaintiff contends that he agreed to extend the time (for performance) by 10 months, provided the defendants handed over the original conveyance and sale deed in respect of the suit property to him. These were handed over; the plaintiff has produced them as Ex. PW-1/9 and Ex. PW-1/10. The plaintiff refers to a letter dated 23.10.1997 sent to the defendants confirming the said facts (Ex. PW-1/11 and postal receipt as Ex. PW-1/12).