RAMESH CHANDER SHARMA Vs. POONAM GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff/appellant is in regular second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale with consequential relief of permanent injunction and possession. Defendants entered into agreement to sell on 26/2/2005 with the plaintiff/appellant in respect of land measuring 2500 sq. yards plotted area out of land owned and possessed by the defendants for a total sale consideration of Rs.5750.00 per sq. yard which ultimately came out to be Rs.1,43,75,000.00. An earnest money to the tune of Rs.15.00 lacs was paid to the defendants through three cheques. Balance sale consideration was to be paid against the allotment of the disputed area. The factum of payment of earnest money to the tune of Rs.15.00 lacs to the defendants was also recited in the agreement to sell dtd. 26/2/2005.

(3.) Before entering into agreement to sell dtd. 26/2/2005, defendants had entered into a collaboration agreement on 17/6/2004 with M/s Omaxe Housing and Developers Limited for the development and construction of residential complex/colony over the land measuring 61 kanals 3 marlas after obtaining licence from the Government of Haryana. As per the aforesaid collaboration agreement dtd. 17/6/2004, defendants were entitled to the total plotted area measuring 9154.50 sq. yards in the complex/colony. The sale deed was to be executed and registered by the defendants within four months after launching of the colony after taking requisite permission/licence to set up a residential plotted colony from the Government of Haryana. Plaintiff further pleaded that Government of Haryana granted the licence to the defendants for the aforesaid performance vide letter dtd. 29/12/2005 and the defendants with the help of their collaborator namely M/s Omaxe Housing and Developers Limited launched a residential colony after obtaining requisite licence in the month of January, 2006. Plaintiff alleged that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of obligation, but the defendants got issued a letter dtd. 3/3/2006 from their Advocate on the fabricated assertion that the agreement stood extinguished as the Government of Haryana had not allotted the plot. Defendants wrongly incorporated Clause-2 of the agreement and got issued letter dtd. 3/3/2006 through their Advocate by saying that agreement to sell dtd. 26/2/2005 stood extinguished.