SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. AMARJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance alleging that the defendant Nos. 2 to 12 were the owners of the premises No. 79/7 Lathouche Road, Kanpur Nagar. They had appointed the defendant No. 13, Bharat Property Dealers, as the auctioneer to -sell the entire property No. 79/7 in seven different parts. The auctioneer advertised the seven parts of the premises for sale through an auction. Part one of the premises in question was put to auction on 23-6-1977. The plaintiffs bid of Rs. 40.000/- was the highest and was accepted by the auctioneer. A sum of Rupees 1000/- in cash and a sum of Rs. 9.000/- by a cheque was paid by the plaintiff on the spot and a receipt was issued to the plaintiff. A sale certificate dated 23-6-77 was issued by the auctioneer in favour of the plaintiff. It was alleged that the defendant Nos. 2 to 12 were required to obtain the requisite permission from the prescribed authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and, only thereafter, the sale deed was to be executed upon the receipt of the balance amount. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant Nos. 2 to 12 obtained the permission to sell the property from the Prescribed Authority and thereafter, surreptitiously executed a sale deed dated 20-8-77 in favour of defendant No. 1. When the plaintiff came to know about the execution of the sale deed, he served a notice dated 29-8-78 directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 13 admitted the rights of the plaintiff, but expressed Its inability to get the sale deed executed on the ground that the defendant Nos. 2 to 12 were not prepared to get the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. It was alleged that the defendant No. 1 and his family members were present when the auction was conducted on 23-6-77 and in spite of knowing that the bid of the plaintiff was accepted, purchased the property fraudulently from the defendant Nos. 2 to 12. The plaintiff further stated that his father was already in possession of the property in question and, that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On the other hand the defendant Nos. 2 to 13 were not willing to perform their part of the contract. Hence, the plaintiff by filing the suit for specific performance prayed that the defendants be directed to execute the sale deed pursuant to the auction sale held on 23-6-77 and deliver possession to the plaintiff.

(2.) The defendant No. 1 filed his written statement and denied the plaint allegation. The defendant No. 1 denied that any auction was conducted on 23-6-77 and further denied that the bid of the plaintiff was accepted. The defendant further stated that he was not aware of any transaction taking place between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 13. The defendant No. 1 contended that he was a bona fide purchaser for value and, had taken all the necessary precaution by inspecting the record of the Sub-Registrar and, after being fully satisfied that there was no impediment, purchased the said property vide a sale deed dated 20-8-77. The defendant No. 1 further contended that before purchasing the property, he had taken the con- sent from the plaintiffs father, who had assured him that he would vacate the premises as he had no requirement of the building and, that he had shifted his entire transport business to the Transport Nagar. Based on this assurance, the defendant No. 1 purchased the property In question. The defendant No. 1 further alleged that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 13 have colluded and brought this suit in order to harass the defendant and to pay a huge premium for getting the premises vacated.

(3.) The defendant Nos. 6 and 7, in their written statement, admitted that they had appointed the auctioneer to sell the property through an auction. The defendant admitted that the plaintiffs bid of Rs. 40.000/- was the highest and that he had paid a sum of Rs. 1000/- in cash and Rs. 9000/- by a cheque. The defendants further contended that It was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos, 6 and 7 that they will obtain permission from the ceiling authority. It was alleged, that it was mandatory under the law, that the plaintiff was required to sign the application seeking permission to transfer the land in his favour and, that he was also required to give an affidavit Indicating therein that he did not possess any land in excess of the prescribed limit under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976. The defendant contended, that the controversy started when the defendant contacted the plaintiff to sign the application form and affidavit, the plaintiff proposed that he was willing to pay Rs. 15,000 in cash as black money and Rs. 25,000 in all before the Sub-Registrar, after adjusting the earnest money. The defendants contended that since they did not accept this proposal, the plaintiff refused to sign the application or give his affidavit. The defendants, therefore, presumed that the plaintiff had no intention to get the sale deed executed and, accordingly, returned the cheque and requested the plaintiff to collect Rs. 1000 from them. The defendant No. 1, thereafter contacted defendant Nos. 2 to 12 and negotiation took place and after going through all the formalities, the sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant No. 1 on a consideration of Rs. 42.000/-. The defendants, further contended, that the plaintiff kept silent for about a year and even after receiving back the cheque, did nothing further and, has now filed the suit with the sole intention to black mail the defendants. The defendants denied that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.