1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 1st September 2003.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this suit are that the plaintiff had entered into an entered agreement to purchase the 3rd floor of the property build on a piece of land measuring 200 sq. yards at the premises bearing number 45/12, East Patel Nagar, Delhi. The consideration, as agreed between the parties, was Rs.25 lacs. A sum of Rs.2 lac was paid by the plaintiff at the time of entering into the agreement and Rs.1 lac was to be paid by 29th September 2003 and remaining Rs.22 lacs was to be paid by 31st January 2004 and on receipt of this payment, the defendant was to execute a sale deed in respect of the third floor in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs contention is that she approached the defendant on 29th September 2003 with payment of Rs. one lac but the defendant stated that he does not need the payment on that day and he would inform the plaintiff whenever this payment would be needed by him. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that on 10th November 2003, defendant informed her that part payment of Rs.1 lac be made to him and accordingly plaintiff made payment of Rs.1 lac to the defendant on 11th November 2003 against receipt. The plaintiff also demanded photocopies of the title documents of the property from the defendant on that day, which he promised to supply in the first week of January 2004 However, copies of the title documents were never supplied by the defendant despite demands made regularly by the plaintiff. Defendant was also required to clear all dues and arrears relating to electricity charges, house tax etc outstanding up to 31st January 2004 Defendant did not supply the documents showing clearance of arrears or the copies of the title documents. On 28th January 2004, the Plaintiff went to the defendant and demanded those documents so that a draft sale deed could be prepared and be shown to the defendant. However, defendant became very rude to the plaintiff and refused to supply the documents and did not give any specific reply. Apprehending mala fide intentions, the plaintiff sent a notice dated 29th January 2004 to the defendant through her advocate calling upon him to complete the transaction by or before 31st January 2004 The notice was received by the defendant on 30th January 2004 However, the defendant did not comply with the demands made in the notice, rather defendant sent a notice dated 2nd February 2004 falsely stating that the plaintiff had failed to pay the balance consideration of Rs.22 lac on or before 31st January 2004 so the amount of Rs. three lac, already paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, stood forfeited. The defendant intentionally did not refer to the notice of the plaintiff, though received by him.

3. Plaintiff submitted that she was the owner of the first floor of the property No.816, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi but since she was a widow and had two children, she wanted to live near the house of her parents at West Patel Nagar, Delhi. She, therefore, had planned to sell her property at Vasant Kunj in order to purchase the property in question. She had received sale consideration of her flat at Vasant Kunj on 21st January 2004 and there was tremendous pressure on her to purchase the suit property and there was no reason for her not to be interested in purchase of the suit property. She had entered into the agreement dated 1st September 2003 only with a view to purchase the property in question after sale of her flat at Vasant Kunj. She was not looking for any other property, therefore, the question of her not being ready and willing to purchase the property in question did not arise and the allegations made by the defendant were false. She had always been ready and willing to make the balance payment of Rs.22 lacs and performing her part of the contract but it was the defendant who refused to perform his part of the contract. She claimed that s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document