DHARAM VIR KALRA Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant vendees regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of District Judge, Patiala, whereby the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 28. 9. 1987 was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, Punjab Financial Corporation issued an advertisement in the "daily Tribune" dated 15. 6. 1980 inviting tender for the sale of movable and immovable property belonging to M/s Neelam Potteries situated on Patiala Road Rajpura through its Managing Director. Rattan Singh plaintiff now represented by the legal representatives submitted an offer for purchase of the property which was considered and accepted in its meeting of the Board of Directors on August 22, 1980, for a down payment of Rs. 1,10,000/ -. Sh. Balraj Kumar, Assistant Manager, of the Corporation, was authorised to execute the sale deed on behalf of the Corporation. Rattan Singh was intimated regarding the acceptance of his offer through a letter dated 22. 9. 1980 who in turn made a request vide letter dated 26. 9. 1980 for purchase of the necessary stamp paper at his cost and to intimate him the cost of stamp paper to be purchased so that the demand bank draft could be submitted for completion of the sale transaction. It is the case of the plaintiff that Sh. Balraj Kumar, the authorised agent, did not turn up to execute the sale deed. It has further been stated by the plaintiff that he sent a demand draft of Rs. 11,000/- vide bank draft dated 28. 1. 1981 which was duly accepted by the Punjab Financial Corporation (for short 'the Corporation' ). Since the Corporation failed to execute the sale deed, plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance on 28. 4. 1981. During the pendency of the suit, the Corporation sold this very property in favour of Sarv Sh. Daya Nand Kalra, Dharamvir Kalra and Madan Lal Kalra.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the Corporation, it was averred that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to get the sale deed executed. He was asked vide letter dated 22. 9. 1980 to supply the stamp paper and to get the sale deed executed vide letter dated 13. 10. 1980 but he failed to supply the stamp paper and even the notice issued on 24. 11. 1980 requiring him to complete the sale transaction within 10 days of the issuance of letter failed to yield any response. This way the plaintiff repudiated the contract. Thus, the Corporation had no alternative but to invite fresh tenders and thus has sold the property to defendants No. 4 to 6.