DEEPAK KAPOOR Vs. SATISH CHANDRA MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present First Appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2015, passed by Addl. District Judge 7th, Dehradun in O.S. no. 452 of 1994, Deepak Kapoor and another Vs Satish Chandra Mathur and others, whereby the trial court has dismissed the suit for the relief of specific performance of contract and passed a decree for refund of money amounting to Rs.1,57,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum thereon, which was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant no. 1.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of present appeal are that Defendant no. 1 (respondent no. 1 herein) executed a registered agreement to sell dated 10.07.1991 in favour of the plaintiffs (appellants herein) in respect of land bearing khasra no. 531M, measuring 1456.76 sq. mt., situated at Village Jakhan, Pargana Central Doon, District Dehradun for a total sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-. An amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid as advance. The defendant seller was to obtain permission under the Land Ceiling Act, as also Income Tax Clearance. The sale deed was to be executed by 10.01.1992. Allegedly a sum of Rs.92,000/- was paid to the defendant in the first week of August 1991 and a sum of Rs.55,000/- was paid on 16.08.1991. The time was extended upto 10.08.1992 on the request of the defendant. It is contended that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to get the sale deed executed but the defendant committed default and failed to obtain the requisite clearances. It is further contended that the defendant assured the plaintiffs that he will hand over the property free from all encumbrances. However, the defendant no. 1, intentionally complicated the dispute with regard to passage of the property so that he may not have to execute the sale deed. It is alleged that the plaintiffs / appellants remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar, Dehadun on 10.01.1992 with sale consideration and amount for other expenses, but the defendant failed to appear and rather sought extension of time for which time was extended upto 10.08.1992. On 10.08.1992 too the plaintiffs remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar with sale consideration and amount for other expenses, but the defendant failed to appear. A notice dated 17.06.1994 was issued to the defendant to get the sale deed executed. The defendant gave no reply to the same. A telegram was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 on 03.07.1994 calling upon him to complete all formalities and to execute the sale deed on 06.07.1994. Again on 06.07.1994, plaintiff remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar along with sale consideration, value of stamps and registration fee but the defendant did not turn up.

(3.) Feeing aggrieved, plaintiffs / appellants instituted suit, being O.S. no. 452 of 1994, Deepak Kapoor and another Vs Satish Chandra Mathur. During pendency of the suit, defendant no. 1 disclosed that he has executed two sale deeds, both dated 01.07.1997, and sold the property in two parts to Smt. Chandani Mathur and Sri Suresh Chandra Mathur. The said subsequent purchasers were impleaded as defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the suit. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 further sold the suit property to defendant nos. 4 and 5 respectively vide sale deed dated 09.07.2001. Defendant no. 4 further sold the property to defendant no. 6 vide sale deed dated 19.12.2003. The said defendants were impleaded in the suit and consequential amendments were made in the plaint.