BHAGWAN SHARAN Vs. KRISHNAKANT BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal under Sec. 96 of CPC has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 27/7/2009 passed by First Additional District Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 27-A/2008, whereby plaint relating to specific performance of agreement was rejected.

(2.) The facts in short are that the disputed land is situated at village Dabra Land Survey No. 1827 min Survey No. 1826/7 min Total Area 22500 Sq. Foot which belongs to respondent No.1 Krishnakant Bhargava. Respondent No.1 agreed to sale the aforesaid land to the plaintiffs for consideration amount of Rs.15,00,000.00 (Rs. Fifteen Lakh Only). In pursuant to that, on 05/5/2005, respondent No. 1 received an advance amount of Rs.9,00,000.00 (Rs. Nine Lakh Only) from the plaintiffs and executed an agreement to sale and it was also agreed to that the remaining amount shall be given at the time of execution of sale deed. The sale deed was required to be executed on 05/11/2005. It was also made clear that the sale deed shall be executed through the Court and possession shall also be handed over. It was also agreed to that from the date of purchase, the rent accrued against the sold property shall be shifted towards the plaintiffs. Defendant/ respondent No.1 had also received one cheque of Rs.1,00,000.00(Rs. One Lakh Only) on 18/5/2005 in pursuant to aforesaid agreement. Though respondent No. 1 had received advance money of Rs.10,00,000.00 and remaining consideration amount i.e. Rs.5,00,000.00 was to be given at the time of execution of sale deed and the appellants/ plaintiffs were anxious to get the sale deed executed by giving the remaining consideration amount but respondent No. 1/ defendant kept seeking time for executing the sale deed. Despite various efforts, no sale deed was executed by respondent No.1. Thereafter, one advertisement was published by the plaintiffs in the newspaper on 24/10/2005 informing therein regarding purchase/ execution of sale deed of the disputed land in their favour. After the aforesaid notice was published, objection was raised on behalf of Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Bombay vide its letter dtd. 29/10/2005 to not execute the sale deed rather pleaded that Bharat Petroleum Corporation has the first light to purchase the disputed land.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants/ plaintiffs that as plaintiffs were ready and willing to give the remaining consideration amount, therefore, the trial Court has wrongly rejected the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs. The trial Court has rightly decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs whereby the plea raised by the defendant that the agreement dtd. 05/5/2005 was forged and fabricated was turned down and also held that Rs.10,00,000.00 was given to the defendant. Despite plaintiffs were ready and willing to pay the remaining amount of consideration to get the sale deed executed, respondent No.1 did not execute the sale deed. It is further submitted that the trial Court has wrongly decided that as the disputed land was given on lease to Bharat Petroleum Corporation and without disclosing the aforesaid fact, plaintiffs filed the suit, therefore, discretionary relief cannot be granted to the plaintiffs as they did not come with clean hands before the Court. It is further submitted that Bharat Petroleum Corporation is not the essential party. Earlier, Bharat Petroleum Corporation had not filed any objection till filing of suit, therefore, trial Court has erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgments passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of Aniglase vs. Ramlatha and Ors., [(2005) 7 SCC 534], Silvey and Ors. vs. Arun and Ors., [(2008) 11 SCC 45], Zarina Siddiqui vs. A. Ramalingam., [(2015) 1 SCC 705] and Syscon Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. Primella Sanitary Products Pvt. Ltd. and Ann, [(2016) 10 SCC 353].