MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) THIS APPEAL IS FILED AS AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30. 9. 2003 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DELHI IN SUIT NO. 56/2002.

( 2 ) BY THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND DECREE, THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE RECORDED HIS FINDINGS ON THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THE SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND WAS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. THE SAID SUIT WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT/plaintiff AS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS, WHO WERE ARRAYED AS DEFENDANTS SEEKING FOR A DECREE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT. IN THE PLAINT FILED OF THE PRESENT SUIT, CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FILING THE SUIT HAS BEEN STATED THUS:

"12. THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS, FIRSTLY ON 06. 05. 2002, WHEN THE DEFENDANT NO. 1 AND THE PLAINTIFF MUTUALLY AND ORALLY AGREED (THAT) THE DEFENDANT NO. 1 WOULD SELL THE SUIT PROPERTY TO THE PLAINTIFF IN LIEU OF THE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 6,00,000/- AND ACTING ON THE AGREEMENT TO SELL, THE PLAINTIFF PURCHASED THE STAMP PAPERS WORTH OF RS. 78,000/ -. IT FURTHER AROSE ON 17. 05. 2002 WHEN THE PLAINTIFF GAVE THE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THE DEFENDANT NO. 1 AND IT FURTHER AROSE WHEN THE PLAINTIFF WAS GIVEN PEACEFUL POSSESSION OF THE SUIT PROPERTY BY DEFENDANT NO. 1. THE CAUSE OF ACTION ONCE AGAIN AROSE WHEN THE DEFENDANT NO. 1 (WAS) DULY SIGNED THE SALE DEED IN FRONT OF ATTESTING WITNESSES ON 17. 05. 2002 AND IT FURTHER AROSE WHEN THE DEFENDANT NO. 1 REFUSED TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED IN FRONT OF SUB REGISTRAR-VIII. THE CAUSE OF ACTION IS STILL CONTINUE (ING ). "

( 3 ) THE RELIEF, WHICH IS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PLAINTIFF, IS ALSO STATED IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PLAINT, AS FOLLOWS:

" (A) grant A DECREE IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS FOR THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT; THEREBY DIRECTING THE DEFENDANT NO. 1 TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED IN THE OFFICE OF DEFENDANT NO. 3 AND PERFORM AND FULFILL HER PART OF THE CONTRACT FOR SALE OF THE SUIT PROPERTY. (B) any OTHER RELIEF WHICH THIS HON ble COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE MAY ALSO BE PASSED IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS. "

( 4 ) THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN, WHO WERE ARRAYED AS DEFENDANTS, FILED THEIR WRITTEN STATEMENT AND ON THE BASIS OF THE PLEADINGS OF THE PARTIES, THE FOLLOWING ISSUES WERE FRAMED: 1 whether THE PLTF. ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WITH DEFT. NO. 1 ON 28/2/2002 FOR SALE OF THE SUIT PROPERTY BEARING NO. 11, GROUND FLOOR, MEASURING AREA 103 SQ. YARDS OUT OF KHASRA NO. 824 SITUATED IN THE AREA OF VILL. CHANDRAWALI, EAST KRISHAN NGR, SHAHDRA, DELHI - 51 FOR A TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION AMOUNT OF RS. 6 LAKHS AND SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERED INTO AN ORAL AGREEMENT TO SELL FOR THE SALE OF THE SAID SUIT PROPERTY ON 17. 5. 2002? OPP. 2 whether THE PLTF. HAS PAID TO DEF. NO. 1 THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION AMOUNT OF RS. 6 LAKHS ON 17. 5. 2002? OPP. 3 whether THE SIGNATURES OF DEFT. NO. 1 ON THE SALE DEED PREPARED ON THE STAMP PAPER WORTH OF RS. 78,000/- WAS OBTAINED BY THE PLTF. UNDER FRAUD AND THREAT AND BY MISLEADING THE DEFT. NO. 1 AS HAS BEEN ALLEGED IN THE W/s? OPD. 4 whether THE DEFT. NO. 1 DELIVERED THE PEACEFUL POSSESSION OF THE SUIT PROPERTY TO THE PLTF. ON 17. 5. 2002 AS ALLEGED BY THE PLTF? OPP. 5 whether THE DEFT. NO 1 HAS REFUSED TO PERFORM HER PART OF THE AGREEMENT BY REFUSING TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED DULY SIGNED BY HER AND THE PLTF. IS ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AS CLAIMED IN THE SUIT? OPP? 6 whether THE PLTF. HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL WITH DEFT. NO. 1 FOR RS. 36,50,000/- FOR THE PORTION OF GROUND FLOOR, FIRST FLOOR AND SECOND FLOOR UPTO ROOF AND THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED BY DEFT. NO. 1 IN 2 IN PARTS AS ALLEGED IN PARA 1 IN REPLY ON MERITS IN THE W/s? OPD. 7 whether THIS COURT HAS NO PECUNIARY JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH THE MATTER? OPD. 8 relief.

( 5 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, HOWEVER, THE RESPONDENTS/defendants FILED AN APPLICATI

Click Here to Read the rest of this document