M K WATTS Vs. USHA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff -respondent Usha Sharma has sought a decree for specific performance of an agreement dated 3 -9 -1984 in the present suit. The learned trial Court has dismissed the suit. However, the first Appellate Court granted decree for specific performance of an agreement on payment of balance sale consideration of Rs. 12 lacs. It is the defendant who has challenged such decree before this Court in second appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiff has alleged that on 3 -9 -1984, defendant No. 1 agreed to sell site No. 8 measuring 9680 square yards situated at Urban Industrial Estate, Delhi Road, Gurgaon along with construction and machinery thereon for a total sum of Rs. 14 lacs. A sum of Rs. 2 lacs was paid at the time of execution of the agreement of sale. Another sum of Rs. 2 lacs was payable on or before 2 -10 -1984. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - on 18 -9 -1984, Rs. 10,000/ - on 22 -9 -1984 and Rs. 1,60,000/ - on 25 -9 -1984. The plaintiff has averred that the defendant was to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 3,97,905.07 paise due from him to the Haryana Financial Corporation. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 15 -11 -1984. Both the parties were given opportunity to rescind the contract up to 2 -10 -1984, failing which the agreement was irrevocable and binding upon them. The plaintiff has pleaded that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract but defendant No. 1 committed breach of contract and refused to execute the sale deed. Defendant No. 1 wanted to sell the suit property in favour of M/s. Milk Food Ltd. to cause wrongful loss to her. She served a legal notice dated 19 -2 -1985. Therefore, the company refused to purchase the property. However, defendant No. 1 has agreed to sell the property to defendant No. 2 in the month of January, 1987. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Sub -Judge, Gurgaon but still defendant No. 1 has failed to execute the sale deed.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 1 filed written statement taking up a plea that there was no agreement of sale executed on 3 -9 -1984 or that a sum of Rs. 2 lacs or any other amount on account of earnest money was paid. He denied that the sale was to be completed on or before 15 -11 -1984. It is stated therein that the time was essence for the contract and therefore, the agreement automatically stood cancelled and the suit is not maintainable.