SATINDER KAUR Vs. IQBAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by Shrimati Satinder Kaur, plaintiff, against the judgment and decree dated April 14, 1971 of the District Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing her appeal against the judgment and decree dated May 30, 1970 of the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh, whereby her suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell the property in dispute was dismissed, but the defendant-respondent, Iqbal Singh, was directed to refund Rs. 2. 000 to her.

(2.) THE facts of this case are that Iqbal Singh, defendant, is owner of plot No. 65, Street A. Sector 18-A, Chandigarh, and he agreed to sell the same to Smt. Satinder Kaur, appellant, and executed agreement deed. Exhibit P-l, dated January 18, 1965, in her favour. The sale price of the plot was fixed at Rs. 8,500, out of which the vendee was required to pay Rs. 3,000 as earnest money, which she paid to him by means of cheque, dated January 14, 19g5, and the balance price was to be paid within three months of the execution of the agreement, before the Sub-Registrar, at the time of the registration of the sale deed. The vendor was required to execute a power of attorney in favour of the vendee or her nominee to do all acts in connection with the construction of the building on the site and for the execution of the sale deed. The building on the plot was to be constructed as per rules framed by the Administration of the Capital Project, Chandigarh, and the building so constructed by the vendee was to be deemed to have been constructed on behalf of the vendor. After the completion of the building, or earlier on the removal of the restrictions imposed by the Government in this respect, viz. sale of the plots, the plot was to be transferred in the name of the vendee. In case the vendor could get a loan of Rs. 16,000/- sanctioned for the construction of the house under the House Buildings Loan Scheme, he was required to make available the said amount to the vendee and in that case, the price of the plot shall be deemed to have been fixed as Rs. 9,350/ -. and the vendee shall pay additional sum of Rs. 850/- to the vendor as the additional price of the plot in dispute. In case the vendee failed to perform her part of the contract, the earnest money shall stand forfeited. The plaintiff-appellant alleged in the plaint that the defendant-respondent failed to perform his part of the contract and that a decree for specific performance of the contract may be pasr-ed in her favour against Iqbal Singh. defendant, on payment of the remaining sale price and in the alternative, decree for Rs. 6,600/on account of earnest monev. interest and damages may be passed in her favour against the defendant.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendant. He denied that he failed to perform his part of the contract. On the other hand, it was pleaded that the plaintiff failed to perform her part of the contract On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:-1. Whether the agreement between the parties is forbidden by law and. therefore, is unenforceable ? 2. Whether there were anv terms and conditions different from those given in the agreement ? 3. Whether the agreement stands vitiated on account of fraud and misrepresentation as alleged by the defendant?