DILEEP KUMAR SHAW Vs. SHANTI RAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has instituted this suit for a decree for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 3rd July, 2009, 1st October, 2009, 13th November, 2009 and 30th November, 2009 against the defendants and each of them and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and/or their men, agents or cohorts from dealing with and/or encumbering and/or selling the suit premises to any third party. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining their men, agents or cohorts from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit premises with other consequential reliefs.

(2.) The plaintiff's case in brief is that plaintiff is a businessman carrying on business of diverse marble and marble by products where as the defendants are the owners of the demarcated 1500 sq. feet of area in the southern portion of the 2nd floor of premises no. 70/1/2, Gouribari Lane, Kolkata-700004, more fully described in the schedule to the plaint. Pursuant to negotiation the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit premises and the defendants agrees to sell the same for a consideration of Rs. 21,00,000/- and an agreement for sale dated 3rd July, 2009 was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants upon earnest sum of Rs. 50,000/- paid to the defendant on the date of execution of such agreement. It was agreed that a further sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- would be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant within a month from the date of the execution of said agreement for sale and the balance thereof would be payable to the defendants at the time of registration of the sale deed in respect of the suit premises.

(3.) Plaintiff duly made payment of the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the defendants as per the agreement aforesaid but the defendants were not in a position to clear all the entire municipal dues in respect of the suit premises amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- and to furnish title deeds and other documents in respect of the premises as agreed in Clause 6 of the said agreement. So, the plaintiff and the defendants by an agreement dated 1st October, 2009 extended the time from 1st September, 2009 to 30th October, 2009 for completion of the registration of the deed and a further sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the defendant to facilitate the defendant to clear of the municipal dues in respect of the suit premises but the defendants failed and neglected to either pay of the municipal dues of the premises or to execute the deed of conveyance in terms of the agreement dated 13th November, 2009. Again by an agreement extending the date of execution of the deed of sale by 30th November, 2009 was extended and plaintiff further paid sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the defendants. Yet, by further agreement dated 30th November, 2009, time for execution of deed of sale by 14th December, 2009 was extended upon request of a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the defendants to facilitate the execution of the sale deed. Thus, the plaintiff paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- to the defendants under the said agreements. The plaintiff has paid excess sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- and the plaintiff was put in possession of the entire suit premises by the defendants on 20th December, 2009 but the defendants did not execute and register the deed of sale in terms of the agreement. So the defendant were not requested to execute the deed of conveyance in respect of the suit premises upon receipt of the balance sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- by an advocate's letter. But of no effects hence the suit has been filed with a prayer for decree of specific performance of agreement dated 3rd July, 2009 and as per the time extended from time to time by separate agreements on 1st October, 2009, 13th November, 2009 and 30th November, 2009.