The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff with a concluded agreement for the sale of property, who has not committed any breach of the contract and is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, is entitled to the relief of specific performance.

(May 10, 2002) 2002 (TLS)127508

2002-AD (Del)-7-164 :: 2002-ILRDLH-10-287

N. K. WIDHANI Vs. AJIT PERSHAD JAIN

Devinder Gupta

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by learned Single Judge on 26. 5. 1989 in Suit no. 389/77 thereby granting a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff/respondent against the defendants/appellants in terms of agreement dated 19. 12. 1976 (Ex. PW. 2/1 ). Two months time was allowed to the plaintiff to deposit balance amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-, Thereafter, the defendants were to file necessary applications seeking permission/no objection from the concerned rs. 10,000/- in cash as advance. Defendants agreed to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the property soon after the sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- is paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 6 on behalf of defendants 1 to 5. Plaintiff was to pay another sum of Rs. 35,000/- within 15 days of the date of receipt of intimation of the permission to sell the property by Land and Development Office and balance of Rs. 55,000/- was to be paid by the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of sale deed before the Sub. Registrar, Delhi.

( 2 ) THE above deal was admittedly struck through one Shri Bikram Singh, Property Broker. Plaintiff paid the sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the defendants through defendant No. 6 as an advance. As possession was not delivered by defendants 1 to 5 on receipt of Rs. 1,65,000/ -. Though according to the plaintiff that Lhough he was ready with the money but defendant No. 6 inspite of promising to do so had been postponing the plaintiff on one pretext or the other. Plaintiff also visited jaipur and requested defendant No. 6 to fix date and time of his visit to Delhi for acceptance of the amount and on acceptance to deliver vacant possession. The plaintiff thereafter on 3. 5. 1977 sent notice Ex. P. I through his lawyer calling upon rs. 10,000/- in cash as advance. Defendants agreed to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the property moon after the sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- is paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 6 on behalf of defendants 1 to 5. Plaintiff was to pay another sum of Rs. 35,000/- within 15 days of the date of receipt of intimation of the permission to sell the property by Land and Development Office and balance of Rs. 55,000/- was to be paid by the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of sale deed before the Sub. Registrar, Delhi.

( 3 ) THE above deal was admittedly struck through one Shri Bikram Singh, Property Broker. Plaintiff paid the sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the defendants through defendant No. 6 as an advance. As possession was not delivered by defendants 1 to 5 on receipt of Rs. 1,65,000/ -. Though according to the plaintiff that though he was ready with the money but defendant No. 6 inspite of promising to do so had been postponing the plaintiff on one pretext or the other. Plaintiff also visited jaipur and requested defendant No. 6 to fix date and time of his visit to Delhi for acceptance of the amount and on acceptance to deliver vacant possession. The plaintiff thereafter on 3. 5. 1977 sent notice EM. P. I through his lawyer calling upon the defendants to receive the sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- and on receipt thereof bo deliver physical and vacant possession of the premises within next three days of the telegram. On failure of the defendants to comply with the requirement of notice, the plaintiff filed a suit for grant of decree for possession against the defendants on 17. 5. 1977. Before filing of the suit, the plaintiff got prepared a bank draft in the sum of rs. 1,65,1300/- from Andhra Bank Ltd. After institution of the suit, the plaintiff deposited rs. 2,00,000/- in fixed deposit to show his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.

( 4 ) THE suit was contested by the defendants, who filed written statement raising numerous defences. Replication was also filed by t