Back
2009 Supreme(Del) 87
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Honble Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudershan Kumar Misra, JJ.
Shri Ved Prakash Ahuja – Appellants
Vs.
Major Suraj Prakash Chhatwal – Respondent
RFA (OS) No. 29 of 1986
Decided On: 21.01.2009
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: N.S. Jain, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: K.K. Mehrotra, Adv.
The appellant's inability and unwillingness to pay the balance consideration were crucial in the court's decision.
Headnote:
specific performance - property agreement - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - [LIMITATION, AGREEMENT OF SALE, BREACH OF AGREEMENT, READY AND WILLING, LACHES] - The court discussed the issues of limitation, agreement of sale, breach of agreement, readiness and willingness, and laches. It found that the appellant did not have sufficient means or resources to arrange the payment of the balance amount within a reasonable period of time after the execution of the agreement and thus kept on prolonging the matter on one pretext or the other. The court also highlighted the appellant's advantage as a protected tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and the importance of the appellant's ability to make the balance payment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of a property. The respondent raised objections including the legality and validity of the documents, bar of time, delay and laches, and unwillingness of the appellant to perform his obligations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant did not have sufficient means or resources to arrange the payment of the balance amount within a reasonable period of time after the execution of the agreement and thus kept on prolonging the matter on one pretext or the other.
Issues: The issues included limitation, agreement of sale, breach of agreement, readiness and willingness, and laches.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant's inability and unwillingness to pay the balance consideration were key factors in the court's decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale of property No. B-4/3, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi in terms of a letter of the respondent dated 23.8.1978 and a receipt for earnest money of Rs. 5,000.00 dated 30.10.1978. The appellant at the stage of the said agreement was a tenant in part of the premises in suit. The total consideration agreed to was Rs. 1,10,000.00. The plaintiff claimed that assurances had been held out to him that documents of sale would be executed in his favour through various letters but to no avail and thus a legal notice dated 19.1.1982 was sent by the appellant expressing his willingness to perform his part of the contract with the balance consideration being ready with him but the same was denied vide reply dated 5.2.1982. The suit was verified on 9.2.1982 while it was filed on the Original Side of this Court on 23.4.1982.
2. The respondent raised various preliminary objections including the legality and validity of the documents, bar of time, delay and laches and unwillingness of the appellant to perform his obligations in making the balance payment. It was stated that on the visit of the appellant to the respondent at Lucknow in 1978 the respondent agreed to sell the property with the understanding that the price would be informed to him after checking the same from the market. The respondent claims that since he had two marriageable daughters there was a need of funds. The letter dated 23.8.1978 of the respondent informed the appellant of price of Rs. 1,10,000.00 but the appellant vide letter dated 4.10.1978 informed that in his opinion the price was on the higher side and should be Rs. 90,000.00. It was, thus, alleged that no agreement was executed. The execution of the receipt dated 30.10.1978 and the receipt of Rs. 5,000.00 was not denied but it was stated that the respondent was under the influence of medicines as he had come from the hospital and in any case the sale transaction had to be completed within three (3) months from the date of the receipt.
3. The issues were framed in the suit as under on 30.8.1984:
ISSUES:
1. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP
2. Whether the defendant entered into an agreement of sale with plaintiff in respect of House No. B-4/3, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, for a consideration of Rs. 1,10,000/- and received Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money and executed a valid receipt for this amount? OPP
3. If the issue No. 2 is held in favour of the plaintiff was the agreement terminated by the letter dated 9.12.1980 of the plaintiff asking the defendant to treat the sum of Rs. 5,000/- as Loan? OPD
4. Whether the defendant committed breach of agreement to sell and if so to what effect? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of the specific performance on account of alleged laches? OPD
7. Relief.
.4. The suit was tried and the appellant appeared as PW-1. Two other witnesses were also produced being one Shri Raj Kumar, who resides in Lucknow and who was a relation of the appellant and Virender Pal Khurana, PW-3, his brother-in-law.
.The defendant appeared in support of his case as DW-2 and his son-in-law appeared as DW-1. On conclusion of the trial in terms of a judgement and decree dated 11.4.1986 the suit was dismissed with costs.
5. The learned single Judge of this Court (as he then was) came to a conclusion on the basis of the evidence on record that the parties did enter into an agreement to sell and that the respondent had received a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 as earnest money with the receipt being Exhibit P-2. Issue No. 2 was, thus, found in favour of the appellant. The suit was also found to be within time and the question of laches was held not to be a material fact and thus issue Nos. 1 and 6 were also found in favour of the appellant. The remaining three issues were dealt with together. The documents on
