VED PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. SHISHU PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance of contract of sale of house no. 6/2, Race Course Colony, Bulandshahr. One Sri P.N. Taneja was the owner of the house. The plaintiff was its tenant. The plaintiff wanted to purchase the house. Before the deal could be completed the defendant offered a higher price to Sri Taneja and the house was sold to him. The defendant thus became the landlord of the plaintiff in respect of the house in suit. The defendant filed a suit No. 318 of 1968 in the court of 1st Munsif, Bulandshahr for the ejectment of the defendant. During the pendency of the suit the parties entered into a compromise under which Ved Prakash the plaintiff of suit No. 313 of 1968 and the defendant appellant in the instant appeal agreed to sell the house in question to Sri Shishu Pal Singh, the plaintiff-respondent for a sum of Rs. 15,900/- This agreement was dt. 23-7-1970 A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid in advance. The sale deed was to be executed by 31-12-1971. The parties, however, entered into another agreement dt. 23-3-1971 whereunder the sale-consideration was raised by Rs. 1,000/- and the sale-deed was to be executed by 5-4-1972. On 6-4-1972 a third agreement was entered into between the parties under which the sale consideration was raised to Rs. 19,000/- and the sale-deed was to be executed by 31-3-1973. On 6-4-1972 the plaintiff-respondent paid a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the defendant-appellant. The balance of Rs. 13,000/- was to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale-deed. In the meantime the U. P. Ceiling on Property (Temporary Restrictions on Transfer) Ordinance No. 15 of 1972 came into force which restricted transfers of agricultural land and urban properties for a temporary period. Subsection (4) of Section 3 of the Ordinance provided for the, relaxation of the restriction. This Ordinance came into force on 11th July, 1972. The Ordinance was substituted by U. P. Act No. 36 of 1972 (The) Uttar Pradesh Ceiling on Property (Temporary Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972. This Act came into force on 11th Sept., 1972. Section 3 of the Act provided that during a period of three months from July 12, 1972, no person shall, saye as expressly provided in Sub-sections (3) and (4), transfer any urban property or agricultural land. Sub-section (4) of Section 3 provided that the State Government may, by general or special order and for reasons to be recorded exempt any urban property or agricultural land from the provisions of this Act.........".

(2.) Thereafter (The) Uttar Pradesh Ceiling on Property (Temporary Restriction on Transfer) Amendment Act (U. P. Act No. 45 of 1972) extended the restriction till 31-1-1973. Under the various legislations that followed, the position enuring as regards the present contract was that the sale deed could be executed with the permission of the competent authority nominated in that behalf. The defendant-appellant, however, did not obtain the permission in spite of the plaintiff's repeated requests in that regard, and the sale-deed was not executed as undertaken by him. The plaintiff then gave notice to the defendant which was returned by him. The plaintiff thereafter filed the suit giving rise to this appeal on the allegations that the defendant, under the agreements executed by him, was bound to execute the sale-deed of the house in question in favour of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was and has ever been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; that the plaintiff had actually gone to the Sub-Registrar's office with the balance amount of the sale consideration after informing the defendant but could not obtain the sale-deed in his favour due to the defendant's failure to appear before the Sub-Registrar and that plaintiff thereafter gave two notices to the defendant to fulfill his promise and to execute the sale-deed but they were returned by him, hence the suit. The plaintiff further pleaded that he was ready to pay the registration charges and the stamp duty payable on the deed till 31-3-1973 but the enhanced charges after that date, i.e. after 31-3-1973, were to be borne by the defendant.

(3.) The defendant-appellant admitted the execution of the agreements as alleged by the plaintiff but pleaded that the plaintiff did not possess sufficient means to purchase the property and hence he did not obtain the sale-deed in his favour, that the defendant was not affected by the various legislations imposing restriction on the transfer of urban property as the value of the property possessed by him fell short of the value covered by those legislations; that there was no restriction on the transfer of urban properly at the time the first agreement was executed, and the plaintiff could have obtained the sale-deed in his favour within the time stipulated therein but he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and hence the sale-deed could not be executed in his favour; that the plaintiff obtained further extension of time under the subsequent agreements, during which time, restrictions were imposed on the transfer of urban property but the transfer could be made with the permission of the competent authority appointed in that behalf, and the plaintiff had to obtain the permission, that the failure of the plaintiff to obtain the sale-deed in his favour by 31-3-1973 results in the forfeiture of the earnest money deposited by him, and Suit No. 318 of 1960 was to stand decreed under the terms of the agreement; the fault thus lay with the plaintiff in not obtaining the sale-deed, in his favour within the stipulated time, and the suit accordingly was liable to be dismissed. The defendant denied his liability to pay the stamp duty and the registration charges.