Dalveer Bhandari, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgmentand Decree dated 6/10/1976 passed by the Sub-Judge, Delhi, decreeingthe Suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract.

( 2 ) THE brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the present appealare set out as under:

ON 24. 1. 1973, defendant agreed to sell and the plaintiff agreed topurchase the quarter no. 3/4, Double storey, Lajpat Nagar IV, Newdelhi, for a consideration of Rs. 16,000. 00. The defendant receivedrs. 1000. 00at the time of signing of the agreement and the plaintiffagreed to give another sum of Rs. 14. 000. 00 to the defendant before 31/03/1973 and another sum of Rs. 1000. 00 at the time of registration of the sale deed. It was agreed between the parties that thesale deed would be executed within 15 days of the receipt of thesale permission to be executed by the defendant in favour of theplaintiff or his nominee.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract onthe ground that the defendant failed to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time. It was further averred that the defendant also failed to give the vacantpossession of the quarter in question even though the plaintiff has always beenready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs. 14,000. 00 to the defendant. The plaintiff prayed that the agreement dated 24. 1. 1973 be enforced by meansof specific performance. It appeared to the plaintiff that the defendant wasbacking out of the coract. Therefore, he had sent telegraphic notice on26. 3. 1973. The telegraphic notice sent by the plaintiff is reproduced in toto asunder:

"sale quarter 3/4 Lajpat Nagar and also Telegram Dated 26. 3. 73 (.)you received earnest money 1000. 00 now Rs. 14,000. 00 ready receive andgive possession before 31. 3. 73 intimate time and date place. Gulab Tulsyani Advocatefor Gian Chand Son Santumal4/11, Old Double Storeylajpat Nagar. "

( 4 ) BUT in spite of such a specific telegraphic notice, the defendantfailed to execute the sale deed and did not give possession to the plaintiff.

( 5 ) ON 28. 3. 1973, the plaintiff had sent another telegraphic letter callingupon the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the property. Thereafter, the plaintiff had again sent a copy of the notice through postal A. D. registered letter to the defendant. The defendant chose not to reply to any ofthese notices. In pursuance of all these notices and oral requests eventually thedefendant gave expression to his hidden feelings and desire and orally communicated to the plaintiff his unwillingness to sell the property. Immediately thereafter, on 14/04/1973, he had sent a letter to the plaintiff-through his Counselfinally refusing to perform his part of the contract. The defendant had alsothreatened the plaintiff to forfeit Rs. 1000. 00 paid in advance to him at the timeof the agreement. The defendant by his conduct had left no option for theplaintiff and as a last resort, the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performanceof the contract on 19. 4. 1973.

( 6 ) IN the suit, the plaintiff reproduced the terms and conditions of theagreement. In para 4 of the plaint, it has been categorically mentioned that onor about 23. 3. 1973, the plaintiff told the defendant that he was ready and willing to pay balance amount of Rs. 14,000. 00 in cash and the defendant be readyto hand over vacant possession in time before 31/03/1973. The plaintiffagain sent a telegraphic notice dated 26/03/1973 in which the plaintiffreiterated that he was ready and willing to pay the balance sum of Rs. 14 000. 00again, on 28/03/1973, the plaintiff through his Counsel had sent anothertelegraphic notice calling upon the plaintiff to hand over vacant possession of the property on payment of Rs. 14,000. 00. The defendant did notsend any reply to any of the plaintiff s notices but orally mentioned thathe was not willing to sell the property to the plaintiff.

( 7 ) THOUGH the defendant had virtually no defence in this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document