RAKHA SINGH Vs. BABU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rakha Singh filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 10-9-1980 in respect of one plot measuring 100 sq. yards against Babu Singh defendant, situated at village Baddi comprising Khasra Nos. 640, 641, Khata No. 490/613. It is alleged in the plaint that vide agreement dated 10-9-1980, the defendant agreed to sell plot measuring 100 sq. yards as detailed above, for a sum of Rs. 4,000.00 to him. A sum of Rs. 500.00 was paid as earnest money, at the time of the execution of the agreement in the presence of the witnesses. Defendant agreed to execute sale deed in his favour after obtaining permission from the Land Ceiling Authority. It was agreed by the plaintiff that he would pay the remaining sale consideration, at the time of the execution of the sale deed. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the defendant submitted the requisite papers through Shri K. L. Verma Advocate, who drafted the agreement for getting the requisite permission from the Land Ceiling Authority, as required under the law. The Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Ludhiana, gave permission on 2-2-1981. The defendant was informed about the grant of permission by the Urban Ceiling Authority, Ludhiana. Thereafter, the plaintiff made strenuous efforts and requested the defendant several times to execute sale deed in his favour, on receipt of the remaining sale money from him, but to no effect. The defendant turned dishonest and became inclined to alienate the said plot to someone else as there was an appreciation in the rates of Urban property in the vicinity. Defendant's inclination to commit breach of the agreement, which he had entered with him, was without any cogent reason. Plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay the remaining sale consideration to the defendant and obtain from him the sale deed. It was the defendant who was prevaricating and evading to execute sale deed in his favour. Plaintiff served notice through his counsel Shri J. B. Bhardwaj, Advocate, Ludhiana, upon the defendant, but the defendant gave no reply to that notice.

(2.) Defendant-Babu Singh contested the suit of the plaintiff. It was urged that this suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff himself had committed the breach of the terms of the contract to sell. He had lost his status as a buyer of the plot after 1-3-1981 for not complying with the mandatory condition of the contract to sell. Execution and registration was to be completed within one month from the date of sanctioning of sale from the Competent Authority. Permission was granted by the Urban Land Ceiling Officer on 2-2-1981, which was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff and the defendant both had applied to the Urban Land Ceiling Authority for permission. The plaintiff lost his right to purchase the plot as he could purchase plot within one month of the date of the grant of permission by the Urban Land Ceiling Authority, Ludhiana. Time was of the essence of the contract. On the default of either party to the contract, the penal clause was to operate. Plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract as he had no money to pay. Defendant served the plaintiff with notice through his counsel Shri K. L. Verma, Advocate, before the expiry of the period of limitation, but the plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract. It was urged that the plaintiff cannot take advantage of his own default. It was denied that the plaintiff paid Rs.500.00 as earnest money. After the Urban Land Ceiling Authority had granted sanction on 12-2-1981 for the sale of this plot, the defendant approached the plaintiff many times and requested him to purchase stamp etc. and obtain sale deed from him. Plaintiff could not obtain sale deed from him as money was not ready with him. Finding no other alternative, the defendant served him with notice dated 27-2-1981, through his counsel, to complete his part of the agreement by 1-3-1981, but he failed to do so. After 1-3-1981 the contract lost its efficacy and no more subsisted.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court :-