Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1023
High Court of Delhi
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
Vijay Kumar & Another
Versus
Neeru Rajput & Another
CS(OS) 1068 of 2008
Decided on : 22-08-2013
For the Plaintiffs:G.S. Rana, Advocate.
For the Defendants: None.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Agreement to Sell - Negotiable Instruments Act - Court Fees - Misjoinder of Parties - Permanent Injunction - [SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE] - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Negotiable Instruments Act, Sections 138/142; Court Fees Act; Civil Procedure Code, Order 1 Rule 1; Specific Relief Act, Section 16(c)] - The court analyzed the Agreement to Sell and the payment transactions, finding that the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance as they had paid a substantial part of the sale consideration. The court also addressed issues related to court fees, misjoinder of parties, and granted a decree of permanent injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought specific performance of an Agreement to Sell for a property. The defendants admitted the agreement but disputed the payment transactions. The court found that the plaintiffs had paid a substantial amount and were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, granting specific performance of the Agreement to Sell and a decree of permanent injunction. The court also addressed issues related to court fees and misjoinder of parties, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.
Issues: Payment transactions, specific performance entitlement, court fees valuation, misjoinder of parties
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiffs' readiness and substantial payment entitled them to specific performance. Proper valuation of court fees and lack of evidence for misjoinder of parties favored the plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs for specific performance and permanent injunction, with costs. The plaintiffs were required to deposit the balance sale consideration within two weeks.
Vipin Sanghi, J. (Oral)
1. The matter was shown at item No. 7 in the ‘Finals’ of cause list which was effectively item No.1 on 07.08.2013. None appeared for the defendants. I heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs for about 30 minutes. At about 03.45 p.m., I proceeded to judgment. The same was partly dictated in Court. As no time was left, the matter continued to remain on board and has been taken up today once again. Again, there is no appearance on behalf of the defendants.
2. The two plaintiffs are the father and daughter. They have filed the present suit to seek a decree of specific performance in respect of the Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.2007 (Ex.CW1/D). The case of the plaintiffs is that defendant No. 1 – Mrs. Neeru Rajput through her husband-defendant No. 2 Mr. Vijay Kumar Rajput approached the plaintiffs for sale of her entire built up Western Northern (Left Side) portion of built-up ground floor, without roof rights over area admeasuring 75 sq. yds out of total area measuring 150 sq. yds. out of freehold built-up property No. WZ-8 built on plot Nos. 19 and 20 out of Khasra No. 15/13 situated in the area of village Keshopur in colony known as New Sahibpura, Major Bhupinder Singh Nagar, post Office Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No. 1 is the registered owner of the suit property vide sale deed, duly registered in her favour as document No. 145 in Book No. 1 Vol. No. 13539 on pages 138 to 145 registered on 03.01.2006 in the office of Sub Registrar, SR II, Janakpuri, New Delhi, i.e. Ex.P2, also marked as Ex. CW1/B. The further case of the plaintiffs is that after due negotiations between the parties, they entered into the Agreement (Ex.CW1/D). Under the said Agreement, the plaintiffs agreed to purchase the suit property from defendant No. 1 for a total consideration of Rs. 12,25,000/-. At the time when the Agreement was executed, the defendant No. 1 had received Rs. 10 lacs from the plaintiffs towards advance earnest money or part payment. The balance amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- was to be paid by the plaintiffs at the time of execution of the sale deed/transfer documents of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs, or their nominee. It was agreed that at the time of execution of the sale deed, defendant No. 1 shall deliver the vacant possession of the suit property along with all its previous connected relevant documents to the plaintiffs. The government dues, demands, taxes, charges, water & electric connection charges, maintenance charges, builder’s transfer charges and house tax etc. were to be paid by the defendant No. 1 till the date of final payment, and thereafter the same was to be borne by the plaintiffs. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs made further payment of Rs. 1,30,000/- to the defendants on 06.01.2008, which was acknowledged by defendant No. 2 on the agreement itself. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants agreed to execute the sale deed as early as possible, within the period of 3 days. The plaintiffs claim that since the defendants did not move to execute the sale deed by 09.01.2008, a legal notice was issued to defendant No. 1 on 09.01.2008 (Ex.CW1/E) which was replied to by the defendants on 12.01.2008 vide Ex.P3 also marked as Ex.CW1/F. The plaintiffs aver that on 15.01.2008, they waited for the defendants in the office of the Sub Registrar at Janakpuri for them to execute the sale deed. However, they did not turn up. The plaintiffs state that they sent another legal notice to the counsel for the defendants on 23.01.2008 vide Ex.CW1/G, to which the defendants responded on 10.03.2008 vide Ex.P4 also marked as Ex.CW1/H.
3. In the aforesaid premise, the plaintiffs filed the present suit on 06.05.2008. The reliefs sought in the plaint, apart from the reliefs of specific performance, as aforesaid, also include the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants-restraining them, their servants, their a
