(1.) Challenge in RSA-1499-2013 is to the judgment and decree dtd. 16/7/2009 passed by the trial Court, vide which C.S. No.105 dtd. 30/7/1998 filed by the plaintiff was partly decreed, while denying the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell, the respondent-plaintiff was held entitled to damage to the tune of Rs.28.00 lacs along with interest @6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit i.e. 30/7/1998 till the date of actual payment, with costs of the suit as well as judgment and decree dtd. 1/2/2013 passed in C.A. No.210 dtd. 23/7/2009 filed by the respondent-plaintiff, challenging the findings of the trial Court, declining to grant the relief of specific performance, was allowed and the suit was decreed by granting a decree of specific performance of agreement to sell.
(2.) Challenge in RSA-4500-2013 is to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court dtd. 1/2/2013, vide which CA No.234 dtd. 13/8/2009 filed by the appellant-defendant qua partly decreeing the suit, was dismissed Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-defendant, vide agreement to sell dtd. 11/3/1998 qua her House No.96, Sector-8A, Chandigarh, agreed to sell it to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.1.25 crores with a rider that if the entire sale is completed on or before 15/4/1998 i.e. two months prior to stipulated date, on the basis of power of attorney, the sale consideration will be reduced to Rs.1.10 crores, else, the sale deed was to be executed on completion of certain terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement to sell. Rs.2.00 lacs were paid as token money against a formal receipt and another amount of Rs.12.00 lacs was paid as additional amount on 11/3/1998, which was also acknowledged by the defendant vide a separate receipt executed on back of first page of the agreement to sell dtd. 11/3/1998.
(3.) Since terms and conditions of the agreement to sell are heavily relied upon by both the parties, it is relevant to reproduce the same as below: -