NITA SOOD Vs. HARJOT DHANOA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 30/5/2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dtd. 16/9/2013 passed by the trial Court whereby the suit filed by the respondents for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell has been allowed.

(2.) The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dtd. 12/7/2014 on the premise that Smt. Nita Sood (defendant No.l) agreed to sell the suit property to respondent No.l for a sale consideration of Rs.4,75,000.00 along with actual amount to be paid to proforma respondent i.e. Estate Office, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), Panchkula, Haryana. An amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 was paid as earnest money to the appellant and a receipt thereof was issued by the appellant on the back of first page of the agreement to sell. The date for execution/transfer of the suit property was fixed as 21/9/2004 or within 10 days of the grant of permission for transfer by HUDA whichever was later. The respondents always remained ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement but the appellant committed breach thereof.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant has assailed the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below by making two fold submissions. The first contention raised by counsel is that the appellant was required to obtain the requisite permission for transfer of the suit property in favour of the respondent/plaintiff No.l only and not in favour of any other person. Plaintiff No.l at no point of time asked the appellant to obtain permission for transfer of the suit property in favour of plaintiff No.2. It is further submitted that as a blank application proforma for permission by HUDA signed by the appellant was already with plaintiff No.l, name of plaintiff No.2 was filled therein without knowledge of the appellant and permission was obtained but the same was rightly cancelled later.