Back
High Court of Delhi
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
Shakuntala Bholla
Versus
Sheel Chand Jain
RFA(Os) 30 Of 2009
Decided on: 15-05-2012
specific performance - property agreement - - [Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16(c), Section 20, Section 21, Section 22, Section 27] - The court discussed the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, particularly focusing on Section 16(c) which deals with the specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property, and Section 20, Section 21, Section 22, and Section 27 which outline the circumstances under which specific performance may be granted or refused. The court's decision was influenced by its interpretation of these provisions, particularly in determining the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform her part of the agreement and the impact of the defendant's actions on the specific performance of the contract.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sued the respondent for specific performance of a property agreement. The dispute arose over the completion date of the sale and the refusal of the respondent to supply title documents, leading to the termination of the agreement and a claim for forfeiture of the earnest money.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's claim for specific performance was not acceptable due to her failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform her part of the agreement. The court also held that the respondent was entitled to forfeit the earnest money but not the additional sum received, ultimately decreeing the suit in favor of the appellant for a reduced amount.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the agreement, the appellant's readiness and willingness to perform, the demand for title documents, the service of notice, the termination of the agreement, the maintainability of the suit, cause of action, and relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was primarily based on the appellant's failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the agreement, the refusal of the respondent to supply title documents not being a valid impediment, and the lack of evidence of loss to the respondent despite the appellant's breach of the sale completion date.
Final Decision: The court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant for a reduced amount, modifying the impugned decree and awarding the appellant a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- together with interest at the rate awarded by the learned Single Judge.
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. The appellant, Shakuntala Bholla has sued the respondent Sheel Chand Jain for specific performance of the agreement to sell Ex.PW-1/1 (also exhibited as Ex.PW-1/PX1) dated September 01, 2003, execution whereof is not in dispute between the parties. The said agreement envisages that for a consideration of Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only), Sheel Chand Jain would sell the third floor with roof rights of property bearing No.45/12, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008, comprising three bed-rooms, drawing-cum-dining, kitchen, toilet and a bath-room. Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs) stands recorded as paid to Sheel Chand Jain by Shakuntala Bholla. The agreement records that further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) would be paid within 30 days and the balance Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two lakhs) would be paid on or before January 31, 2004, i.e. the date stipulated for sale to be completed.
2. Shakuntala Bholla paid further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) to Sheel Chand Jain, and as per receipt Ex.PW- 1/2 this payment was made on November 11, 2003, execution of which receipt is also not in dispute. The dispute arose with reference to Ex.PW-1/1 requiring the sale to be completed on or before January 31, 2004. It is the case of Shakuntala Bholla that she approached Sheel Chand Jain on January 28, 2004 & requested him to supply the title documents of the property so that a draft sale-deed could be prepared and got approved from Sheel Chand Jain, and it is her claim that she had made a similar request when she had paid Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) to Sheel Chand Jain on November 11, 2003. As per her, Sheel Chand Jain was rude to her and refused to supply the title documents when she approached him on January 28, 2004 & this compelled her to approach a lawyer who issued the legal notice dated January 29, 2004, Ex.PW-1/3 and posted the same under Regd.A.D.Post to Sheel Chand Jain as per postal receipt Ex.PW-1/4 and additionally under Certificate of Posting, evidenced by the Postal Certificate, Ex.PW-1/5 and that the notice was received by Sheel Chand Jain, evidenced by the acknowledgment on the acknowledgment card Ex.PW-1/6. Alleging that she received the notice Ex.PW-1/7 dated February 02, 2004 sent by Sheel Chand Jain in which he alleged she being in default and hence Sheel Chand Jain forfeiting Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs) paid by her to him, suit was filed seeking a decree for specific performance of Ex.PW-1/1 and in the alternative damages in sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs).
3. In the written statement filed by Sheel Chand Jain he did not dispute having executed Ex.PW-1/1 and having received Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) at said point of time, but denied that the persons whose signatures were to be found on the agreement to sell as witnesses had signed the same as witnesses. He refuted Shakuntala Bholla’s assertion that she came to him on September 29, 2003 to offer further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh), but admitted having received said amount on November 11, 2003. Denying having received the notice Ex.PW-1/3, he stated that even otherwise, the story set up by Shakuntala Bholla of her demanding and he refusing to give her title documents of his property was false as he had already supplied photocopies thereof to Shakuntala Bholla when Ex.PW-1/1 was executed. Highlighting that time was the essence of the contract, he justified the agreement being terminated by him vide Ex.PW-1/7.
4. Now, it hardly matters whether Ex.PW-1/1 was witnessed by the persons who have signed the same as witnesses, keeping in view the fact that Sheel Chand Jain had admitted having executed the same. Yet in spite thereof, while settling the issues as per order dated August 08, 2005, an issue got settled on said aspect. 9 issues settled, read as under:-
“1. Whether the agreement in question was not signed by the witness on 1.09.2003? If so, what effect. OPD
2. Whether the p
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
