MAN KAUR Vs. HARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Man Kaur wife of Lt. Col. Kartar Singh defendant in the trial Court, has filed the present Regular Second Appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.6.1997, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Chandigarh who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.3.1983 passed by the Court of additional Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh, who granted a decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 20.10.1978, with costs and called upon the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a period of three months on receipt of the sale consideration minus the costs of the suit if deposited within two months from the date of the passing of the decree dated 15.3.1983. If the defendant fails to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within the stipulated period of three months, it will be open to the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed through Court of law by filing an execution-petition.

(2.) THE pleadings of the parties can be summarised in the following manner. According to the plaintiff, Smt. Man Kaur defendant-appellant was the owner of the partly built House No. 508, Sector 18-B, Chandigarh which was built on Plot No. 100-D and measured 1000 sq. yards. On 20.10.1978 the defendant through her husband and general attorney Lt. Col. Kartar Singh entered into an agreement of sale of the above said plot to the plaintiff Shri Hartar Singh. The defendant was in possession of one room i.e. Gaushala and had agreed to hand over the vacant possession of the said Gaushala to the plaintiff. The remaining portion of the annexe was with the tenant and it was agreed that the premises would be sold as it is i.e. the possession of the Gaushala was to be handed over at the time of the registration of the sale deed. The defendant had indicated that at the time of the execution of the agreement, he had filed a suit for ejectment against the tenant who was occupying the remaining portion and it was agreed that in case the defendant-appellant gives the vacant possession of the entire annexe then the consideration of the sale was to be Rs. 1,60,000/- otherwise, if the possession of the Gaushala was given as indicated the sale consideration would Rs. 1,50,000/-. After the execution of the agreement, the plaintiff paid Rs. 11,500/- to the defendant as earnest money and a separate receipt for the said amount was executed and the balance amount of the consideration was agreed to be paid before the Sub Registrar at the time of the registration of the sale deed. The parties further agreed that the bargain will be finalised and the sale deed would be executed and registered on or before 20.12.1978 and it was claimed on behalf of the plaintiff that time was never the essence of the contract. According to the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to hand over the following documents to the plaintiff at the time of the registration of the sale deed because the sale deed could not be executed and registered without these documents :-

(3.) SHRI Balraj Singh had sent a telegram to the general attorney for the registration of the sale deed and the said telegram was received by the defendant and her attorney reached at Chandigarh from Rourkela (Orissa) for the purpose of the execution of the sale deed. The general attorney of the defendant had met the plaintiff at Chandigarh but the plaintiff could not arrange money to make full payment and defendant claimed that attorney remained in the office of Balraj Singh, Property Dealer till evening and when the plaintiff informed him, her attorney told that they had been defrauded and harassed unnecessarily as he had come all the way from Rourkela to Chandigarh for the purpose of executing the sale deed registered. Defendant had claimed that her attorney told the plaintiff that he would not execute the sale deed afterwards and the contract stands rescinded. Thereafter, the husband of the defendant left for Rourkela and from there he wrote a letter and informed that deal had been finally closed, due to the behaviour of the plaintiff on 7.6.1979 and defendant was not going to sell the property under any circumstances. The defendant further claimed that she said agreement was also rescinded by the plaintiff himself by offering the revised price of the property and, therefore, it was submitted that plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and as such he is not entitled to specific performance and that the earnest money advanced by the plaintiff stood forfeited. The defendant also took the stand that the suit has not been filed by authorised person; that it was not maintainable; that the suit is hit by laches and delay and that plaintiff was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit.