ARUNESH AGGARWAL Vs. SANDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second appeal by the defendant against the judgment of both the Courts below.

(2.) For the sake of brevity few facts are necessary.

(3.) The appellant was issued a letter of intent Ex.P3/A for allotment of a residential plot measuring 500 square yards in SAS Nagar on 30.02001. The defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell his interest in the property on 08.01.2004. There is a recital in the agreement that the allotment letter was yet to be issued but the property was free from all sorts of encumbrances, litigation, claims, transfer etc. The total amount payable was Rs.4,40,000/- out of which Rs.1,87,500/- was already paid to PUDA. A sum of Rs.1 lac was paid as earnest money. It was agreed that the last date for completion of the bargain and for final payment and execution and registration of the GPA, SPA, agreement, Will was fixed for 08.02004. It is not in dispute now that PUDA (the allottee) had already cancelled the letter of intent on 02.12.200 This fact was not disclosed in the agreement by the defendant. The plaintiff along with the balance amount went to the office of the Sub-Registrar for execution of the documents and for payment of the balance amount but the defendant failed to turn up. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession seeking specific performance on 101.2005 and gave the details of the agreement and the amount he had paid as earnest money. It was averred that 8th March, 2004 was a non-working day but he remained present in the Office of Sub-Registrar with the requisite money but the defendant did not turn up and he got his affidavit prepared. His plea was that he came to know that the allotment/letter of intent was cancelled and defendant no.1, preferred an appeal but it was dismissed on 01.06.2004. The plaintiff claims that he sent a legal notice on 108.2004 calling upon him to get the plot restored and to come present in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Mohali on 208.2004 to execute the necessary transfer papers and he remained present there along with the requisite balance sale consideration but defendant no.1 did not turn up and he got his presence marked by swearing an affidavit. It was pleaded that the letter of intent had been restored as the appeal filed by defendant no.1 was allowed and he was competent to transfer the property.