SUKHRAM YADAV Vs. SUCHITA VIJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.11029-C of 2019 Prayer in this application is for condoning delay of 96 days in re-filing the appeal. 1. Heard.

(2.) In view of averments made in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 96 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. Disposed of accordingly. RSA No.4031 of 2019 Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against concurrent findings recorded by the Courts whereby suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 31.07.2007 in respect of plot No.1257 Sector 37, Faridabad measuring 293.34 square yards filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.08.2017 that came to be affirmed in appeal by the District Judge, Faridabad.

(3.) The respondent/plaintiff has claimed that the appellant/defendant was owner of the suit property vide sale deed dated 31.03.1998. He agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 31.07.2007 for sale consideration of Rs.80 lakhs. The appellant received Rs.10 lakhs towards earnest money i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- paid vide cheque and Rs.8,50,000/- in cash. It was agreed that the appellant will get construction over 25% area of plot and obtain completion certification from concerned authority and last date for making payment of balance sale consideration was kept open. On demand of the appellant, the respondent started making part payments to him even before he could obtain completion certification as per agreement. The entire sale consideration was paid. The respondent also paid cost of construction spent by the defendant apart from paying Rs.80 lakhs. Even after receiving entire sale consideration, the appellant kept on delaying the matter on one or other pretext. On 26.08.2012, the appellant admitted of having received the entire sale consideration as well as expenses of construction in presence of his son and witness Joginder Singh and made an endorsement in this regard on the back of agreement in question. The appellant undertook to execute the sale deed within two months by admitting delay on his part. The appellant did not come forward to execute the sale deed. The respondent served legal notice on 16.10.2012 asking the appellant to be present in the office of Sub Registrar on 25.10.2012. The respondent came present in the office of Sub Registrar on 25.10.2012 but the appellant did not turn up. The respondent always remained ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement. She was present in the office of Sub Registrar along with stamp and registration charges but the appellant breached to perform his part of the agreement. Due to escalation of price of the land, the appellant has backed out of the agreement. Hence the suit.