VEENA GOYAL Vs. RAJ KUMAR MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, allowing the respondent/plaintiffs suit for possession of plot No. 601, Sector 16, Panchkula by way of specific performance of contract, and the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula whereby the verdict of the trial Court has been affirmed.

(2.) BRIEF narration of facts is that Smt. Veena Goyal appellant No. 1/defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement dated 01.05.1987 with Raj Kumar Mittal, respondent/plaintiff to sell plot No. 601, Sector 16, Panchkula for a consideration of Rs. 1,52,000/- and received Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money. As per agreement, the sale deed was to be executed in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant on or before 31.05.1987 or within 15 days from the receipt of documents mentioned therein. The balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of sale deed. It was further agreed between the parties that in case defendants back out from the agreement, the plaintiff would have a right to get the sale deed executed in his name through the Court of law under Specific Relief Act and in case of plaintiffs backing out, his earnest money would stand forfeited to the defendant. The bargain was finalized with the efforts of property dealer M/s. Sandeep Arora Jain and Company at Panchkula.

(3.) THE defendants contested the suit stating that plaintiff has neither paid the sum of Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money not defendant No. 1 entered into agreement dated 01.05.1987 to sell her plot for a consideration of Rs. 1,52,000/-. Smt. Rajmati, etc. filed an application on 28.03.1989 stating that the plot in question has been transferred in favour of Smt. Rajmati, etc. by the defendant and permission had been granted by the Estate Officer, HUDA vide Memo dated 26.6.1987. Even thereafter, the plaintiff did not file suit for specific performance upto 20.07.1992. It was denied that plaintiff was put off by the defendant on one pretext or the other. It was admitted that defendant Veena Goyal had applied for permission to transfer the plot in question in favour of Smt. Rajmati, etc, and the said permission was granted on 26.06.1987. The plaintiff's conduct is mala fide and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief in the present suit. In the replication filed by the plaintiff, the pleas taken in the written statement were controverted.