NAVEEN VASHISHT Vs. BAL KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants challenging the concurrent findings returned by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dtd. 6/3/2018 and the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dtd. 13/7/2021.

(2.) Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-appellants filed a suit against the defendant-respondent for specific performance of the agreement to sell dtd. 4/7/2011. It was averred in the plaint that the defendant-respondent had entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff-appellants qua land measuring 10 kanals 07 marlas out of total land measuring 54 kanals 19 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Bhagola, Tehsil and District Palwal, fully described in the plaint. The agreement to sell was for a total consideration of Rs.1,42,00,000.00 and on the date of agreement to sell the defendant-respondent received an amount of Rs.14,20,000.00 as earnest money-qua which a separate writing was executed. The target date for registration of the sale deed was fixed as 4/10/2011. According to the case set up by the plaintiff-appellants, they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and had sufficient funds and means to make the payment of the balance sale consideration. It was further averred that they were present in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Palwal on the target date however the defendant-respondent failed to appear. Thereafter, three legal notices dtd. 30/9/2011, 25/6/2012 and 29/8/2013 were issued to the defendant-respondent, however, he failed to perform his part of the contract. Hence, the suit for specific performance of the contract.

(3.) The defendant-respondent during his lifetime filed a written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was contended that the plaintiff-appellants were never ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and they did not have the finances to fulfil the terms and conditions of the contract. It was further the case set up that on the target date i.e. 4/10/2011 the defendant-respondent duly presented himself in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Palwal, however, the plaintiff-appellants expressed their inability to pay the balance sale consideration and requested for extension upto 4/11/2011 which the defendant-respondent refused to agree to. However, the defendant-respondent as a matter of gesture of goodwill asked the plaintiff-appellants to come on the next date i.e. 5/10/2011 however the plaintiff-appellants failed to appear on 5/10/2011. On 5/10/2011 a notice was received by the defendant-respondent dtd. 30/9/2011 and a reply was submitted to the said notice extending the date of execution of the sale deed upto 20/10/2011. Though on the said extended date the defendant-respondent remained present in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Palwal from 09.00 am to 05.00 pm, the plaintiff-appellants did not appear. Thus, the plaintiff-appellants themselves cancelled the agreement to sell (Ex.P1). After remaining silent for upto 8-9 months, another notice dtd. 25/6/2012 was sent when they came to know that the defendant-respondent was filling in the earth in the suit land and some residential houses were being constructed in the nearby area. The defendant-respondent sent a reply to the legal notice, however, the plaintiff-appellants remained silent thereafter for 14-15 months. The defendant-respondent again started developing the land and spent over Rs.20,00,000.00 and the value of the suit land increased to Rs.3.004 crores. The plaintiff-appellants again sent another notice dtd. 29/8/2013 which was again duly replied to.