Back
High Court of Delhi
REVA KHETRAPAL & PRATIBHA RANI, JJ.
Satya Narain Bansal
Versus
DDA
RFA(OS) No. 23 of 1997
Decided On : 24-09-2013
Specific Performance - Allotment of Plot - [CS(OS) No.1841/1985] - [Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16(c), MPD-62] - The court dismissed the suit for specific performance as the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract. The court also found that the plaintiff did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for allotment of the plot under the scheme. The court emphasized the importance of proving readiness and willingness and the need for the plaintiff to satisfy the eligibility criteria for specific performance.
Fact of the Case:
Late Sh.Satya Narain Bansal filed CS(OS) No.1841/1985 against DDA seeking a decree for specific performance to execute the necessary perpetual lease deed in favour of the appellant in respect of Plot No.216, Block No.B-4, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi, measuring 200 sq.yds. approximately. The Appellant failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation, and also did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for allotment of the plot under the scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract and did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for allotment of the plot under the scheme.
Issues: The issues framed by the court included the maintainability of the suit for specific performance, the allotment of plot in favor of the plaintiff against rules, regulations, and instructions, proper valuation of the suit, ownership and possession of a residential house in Delhi/New Delhi, readiness and willingness to perform the contract, entitlement to specific performance of the contract, and the relief sought by the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory requirement for the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract for specific performance. The court also highlighted the importance of satisfying the eligibility criteria for allotment of the plot under the scheme.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal with costs, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract and did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for allotment of the plot under the scheme.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract and did not meet the eligibility criteria for the plot under the scheme (!) (!) .
The plaintiff, who was a Chairman of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, applied for a plot in 1978 under a scheme reserving plots for sitting Members of Parliament and other specified categories, and was allotted a plot in a draw of lots held in 1979 (!) (!) (!) .
Despite the allotment, the DDA did not execute the lease deed, prompting the plaintiff to serve a legal notice, and subsequently file a suit for specific performance to compel the DDA to execute the lease deed (!) (!) .
The DDA admitted the allotment but contended that allotment alone did not confer rights unless the eligibility criteria were satisfied. The DDA argued that the plaintiff owned property that was used for commercial purposes, which disqualified him from eligibility (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that proving readiness and willingness is a mandatory requirement for claiming specific performance, and the plaintiff did not consistently demonstrate such readiness or willingness at all relevant times (!) (!) .
The court also considered the impact of policy modifications, including the change effective from 02.01.1979, which restricted reservation benefits to specific categories. The court found that the plaintiff's ownership of property at Katra Baryan, which was used commercially, disqualified him under the revised eligibility criteria (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence revealed discrepancies and a lack of clear documentation regarding the application process, the formal allotment, and the communication of the allotment to the plaintiff, raising doubts about the existence of a concluded agreement for specific performance (!) (!) .
The court observed that the plaintiff's claims of being ready and willing, based on conduct and correspondence, were insufficient because the essential terms of the contract were not clearly established and the property was not definitively allotted or transferred to him (!) (!) .
The court noted that the plaintiff had requested a change of plot after the initial allotment, which indicated a rejection of the original plot, further undermining the claim of a concluded and enforceable agreement (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court held that the procedural and substantive evidence did not support the claim for specific performance, particularly due to the lack of proof of a valid, concluded contract and the plaintiff's failure to satisfy the eligibility criteria at the relevant time (!) (!) .
The appeal was dismissed with costs, reaffirming that the plaintiff did not meet the necessary legal requirements to enforce the contract for the plot in question (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
Pratibha Rani, J
1. Late Sh.Satya Narain Bansal filed CS(OS) No.1841/1985 against DDA seeking a decree for specific performance to execute the necessary perpetual lease deed in favour of the appellant in respect of Plot No.216, Block No.B-4, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi, measuring 200 sq.yds. approximately.
2. Vide impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge, on finding that the Appellant (Plaintiff in the Civil Suit) failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation, dismissed the suit.
3. The facts, as pleaded in the Civil Suit, reveal that Sh.Satya Narain Bansal, in his capacity as Chairman of Municipal Corporation of Delhi applied to DDA on 02.08.1978 for allotment of a plot under the policy No.18011(11)/66-UD dated 05.02.1970 framed by the Government reserving 5% of the plots for sitting Members of Parliament, Members of Metropolitan Councils and Delhi Municipal Corporation as well as nonofficial members of the Cantonment Board and NDMC.
4. Vide communication dated 09.02.1979, DDA informed the decision to allot a plot to the Appellant measuring 200 sq.yds. in Safdarjung Residential Scheme requiring him to intimate if it was acceptable to him so that exact number of plot could be decided in draw of lots. Further communication dated 04.04.1979 required him to comply with the requirements specified therein, on or before 20.04.1979. In the draw of lots held on 10.09.1979, Plot No.B-4/216 was allotted to him in Safdarjung Development Area which was subject to fulfilment of required conditions.
5. The Respondent DDA vide communication dated 23.04.1982 informed the Appellant that he would retain the Plot No.B-4/216 in Safdarjung Development Area allotted to him through draw of lots held on 10.09.1979 and other formalities required to be completed in this regard would be intimated to him shortly. DDA failed to execute the lease deed thereby compelling the Appellant to serve DDA with a legal notice dated 08.04.1985 received by the Respondent on 10.04.1985. On failure of the Respondent DDA to execute the lease deed in favour of the Appellant in respect of the plot allotted to him, CS(OS) No.1841/1985 was filed for specific performance against DDA for direction to execute the necessary perpetual lease deed in favour of the appellant in respect of Plot No.216, Block No.B-4, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi, measuring 200 sq.yds. approximately.
6. Respondent DDA filed the written statement admitting the decision to allot a plot No.B-4/216 measuring 200 sq.yds. in Safdarjung Development Area to the Appellant but pleading that allotment of plot in draw of lots does not confer any right on the allottee unless the requisite pre-conditions regarding eligibility are fulfilled. It was pleaded that Appellant filed the affidavit dated 12.04.1979 to satisfy the eligibility criteria that he did not own any residential house in Delhi except a residential ancestral house at 2191, Gali Hanuman Prasad, Dharampura, Delhi-110006. Since the Appellant owned the property No.6479 at Katra Baryan, Delhi (250 Sq.yds.) but stating the same to be commercial, to determine the eligibility of Appellant, efforts were made by the DDA to ascertain the purpose for which the building plans were sanctioned at the time of construction of above property i.e. for residential purpose or commercial purpose. This became necessary as user of the property as commercial in itself does not change the nature of the property for which it was built.
7. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
‘(i) Whether the suit for specific performance is not maintainable as alleged in para 1 of the preliminary objections?
(ii Whether the allotment of plot in favour of the plaintiff was against Rules, regulations and instructions in this behalf?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff has properly valued the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? If not what is the correct valuation thereof?
(iv) Whether th
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
