The court considered the payment of the entire sale consideration and the unutilized property in allowing the plaintiff to retain possession and make periodic deposits, while also addressing the defendant's disability plea and the disputed agreement.

( 1 ) THIS is an application moved by the plaintiff for directions that the keys of the premises as well as actual possession of the property be handed over to the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff has filed a suit claiming a decree for specific performance directing defendant No. 1 to execute and get registered sale deed in his favour or in favour of his nominee with respect to property bearing No. 3/31, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Defendant No. 2 in the suit is Allahabad Bank and a direction is sought against defendant No. 2 to deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 on 14. 12. 1989entered into an agreement for sale of the suit property in plaintiff s favour for a total consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs. A sum of Rs. 1 lakh was paid to defendant No. 1 by way of bank draft dated 12. 12. 1989 and the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 5 lakhs was paid by way of another bank draft. As per the terms of the agreement, defendant No. 1 delivered to the plaintiff symbolic / proprietory possession and agreed to execute a formal deed of sale after the requisite permission in that behalf was granted by the Office of Land and Development. Property was under the tenancy of defendant No. 2 for the purpose of residence of the bank s staff members. Since entire sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1, therefore, as per the terms of the agreement, the right to realise the rents and profits of the property was given to the plaintiff. It was also alleged that as per the terms of agreement on actual delivery of possession bydefendant No. 2, defendant No. 1 was to execute the deed in plaintiff s favour. On or about 8. 7. 1993, defendant No. 2 vacated the premises when the intention of defendant No. 1 became dishonest which necessitated the plaintiff in filing the suit.

( 3 ) SUIT is resisted by defendant No. 1 on number of grounds. Only the pleas which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present are being taken note of. Receipt of a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs is not disputed by defendant No. 1. It is also not disputed that premises were on rent with the defendant No. 2 bank at Rs. 175. 00 p. m. and the bank has now vacated the premises. Defendant No. 1 has also not disputed having signed the agreement. He has tried to wriggle out of the agreement alleging that he is a completely disabled man with feable mind. The property is worth more than Rs. 50 lakhs. His signatures were obtained without his understanding the implication of the documents, therefore, the agreement is not binding on him. Agreement to sale, according to him, was executed on 14. 12. 1989 and the suit filed on 19. 7. 1993 is not within limitation.

( 4 ) AFTER the suit was filed on 26th July, 1993, an order was made directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards possession. On 24. 1. 1994 an order was made on IA 6530/93 on an application moved by defendant No. 2 bank for being discharged, directing the bank to file the keys of the disputed property in the registry. The bank after vacating the premises locked the same and deposited the keys in Court. Eversince the premises are lying locked, the key is deposited in the registry. It is in this background that the plaintiff is now claiming that since he has already paid a substantial amount, namely, the entire amount of sale consideration, he be allowed to enjoy the premises. 181

( 5 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

( 6 ) NO doubt that the defendant has raised a plea that no valid agreement came into being for the sale of the property but defendant is not disputing the receipt of Rs. 6 lakhs, which, according to him, was advanced by way of loan by the plaintiff to him. The fact that defendant has realised a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs from the plaintiff and the property is lying unutilised for which rent payable by the bank was Rs. 175. 00 p. m. , in the interest of justice the plaintiff can be allowed to make beneficial use of the premises. In th