VEENA SHARMA Vs. KAPOOR CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of three Regular Second Appeal Nos. 1806 to 1808 of 2005. Regular Second Appeal 1806 of 2006 arises out of suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 22.04.1987 in respect of House No. 603 (measuring 193 sq. yards), Sector 15-A, Faridabad.

(2.) THE plaintiff-Respondents have sought a decree for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement pleading that defendant No. 1 Smt. Veena Sharma (appellant No. 1) is the daughter of Shri Vishva Mitra Avasthi and wife of defendant No. 2 Om Parkash Sharma (appellant No. 2). The plaintiff claimed that he has paid an amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- to defendant No. 2, husband of defendant No. 1, for purchase of land in the name of plaintiff or his nominee but defendant No. 2 did not purchase the land for the plaintiff and, in fact, given the amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- to his wife. Neither defendant No. 1 nor defendant No. 2 returned the amount to the plaintiff and on persistent demand defendant No. 1 accepted and acknowledged the receipt of the said amount. Both the defendants expressed their inability to return the said amount in cash and defendant No. 1 with the consent and consultation of her husband offered to sell plot No. 603 Sector 15-A, Faridabad and the house constructed thereon.

(3.) IN joint written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, it was asserted that a suit for declaration to the effect that agreement to sell dated 22.04.1987 is bogus and sham transaction has been filed on 14.03.1988. The defendants denied that any agreement to sell was executed or there was consensus and between the parties for the sale of House No. 603, Sector 15-A, Faridabad. It was also pleaded that agreement to sell was without any consideration as the amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- was never paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 2. It was also denied that plaintiff was put in physical possession of the house in dispute. However, it was asserted that power of attorney dated 22.4.1987 has been cancelled and said attorney was arrayed as defendant No. 2 in the earlier suit filed by Smt. Veena Sharma. The execution of rent note was denied as well as the fact that defendant No. 2 ever admitted that he owed an amount of Rs. 16.25 lacs to the plaintiff or that an amount of Rs. 8.25 lacs stands adjusted towards the sale consideration of House No. 604 and 605 belonging to defendant No. 2. It was also alleged that the alleged agreement is a bogus and sham transaction and there is no question of the plaintiff being ready and willing to get the sale deed executed.