VED PRAKASH AHUJA Vs. MANOJ SURAJ PRAKASH CHHATWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale of property No.B-4/3, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi in terms of a letter of the respondent dated 23.8.1978 and a receipt for earnest money of Rs. 5,000.00 dated 30.10.1978. The appellant at the stage of the said agreement was a tenant in part of the premises in suit. The total consideration agreed to was Rs. 1,10,000.00. The plaintiff claimed that assurances had been held out to him that documents of sale would be executed in his favour through various letters but to no avail and thus a legal notice dated 19.1.1982 was sent by the appellant expressing his willingness to perform his part of the contract with the balance consideration being ready with him but the same was denied vide reply dated 5.2.1982. The suit was verified on 9.2.1982 while it was filed on the Original Side of this Court on 23.4.1982.

(2.) THE respondent raised various preliminary objections includingthe legality and validity of the documents, bar of time, delay and laches and unwillingness of the appellant to perform his obligations in making the balance payment. It was stated that on the visit of the appellant to the respondent at Lucknow in 1978 the respondent agreed to sell the property with the understanding that the price would be informed to him after checking the same from the market. The respondent claims that since he had two marriageable daughters there was a need of funds. The letter dated 23.8.1978 of the respondent informed the appellant of price of Rs. 1,10,000.00 but the appellant vide letter dated 4.10.1978 informed that in his opinion the price was on the higher side and should be Rs. 90,000.00. It was, thus, alleged that no agreement was executed. The execution of the receipt dated 30.10.1978 and the receipt of Rs. 5,000.00 was not denied but it was stated that the respondent was under the influence of medicines as he had come from the hospital and in any case the sale transaction had to be completed within three (3) months from the date of the receipt.

(3.) THE suit was tried and the appellant appeared as PW-1. Two other witnesses were also produced being one Shri Raj Kumar, who resides in Lucknow and who was a relation of the appellant and Virender Pal Khurana, PW-3, his brother-in-law. The defendant appeared in support of his case as DW-2 and his son-in-law appeared as DW-1. On conclusion of the trial in terms of a judgement and decree dated 11.4.1986 the suit was dismissed with costs.