Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1499
High Court of Delhi
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
M/s. Ansal Properties & Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
Ratnu (Deceased) Through Lrs & Others
RFA No. 163 of 2002
Decided On : 12-11-2013
For the Appellant:Sanjeev Kumar Dubey, Manoj Taneja, Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Chetan Priyadarshi, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R-2(b)-2(e), N.S. Vashisht, Arpan Sharma, Advocates.
Headnote:
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Specific performance - Agreement to sale - Performance of contract - Suit for specific performance of an Agreement to Sale - Agreement to Sell between the parties - Defendants No.1 & 2 were to obtain NOC as well as the clearance certificate from the Competent Authorities - Land was to be sold within five months - Sale Deed was to be executed in the name of the respondent No.3 or in the name of his nominee - Required certificates were not obtained - Plaintiff is not now found to be ready and willing - Compromise entered into by the respondents no.1(i) to 1(iv) and 2(a) is not with the plaintiff but with the nominee of the plaintiff - The nominee has chosen not to come before this Court - Agreement to sale was entered into by the respondent no.3 for the purposes of trading - If the act of a third party is found to be champertous, the relief of specific performance should be refused - Essential ingredients of readiness and willingness in a suit for specific performance is required to satisfy remains unfulfilled on the part of plaintiff - Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 24th November, 2001 (of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi in Suit No.278/1993) of dismissal of the suit for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale of immovable property filed by the appellant and the respondent No.3 Sh. N.K. Jain.
2. The suit was filed on 11th March, 1983, pleading:
(i) that the deceased respondents/defendants No.1 & 2 namely Sh. Ratnu and Sh. Sarjeet, both sons of Sh. Thakar Dass were Bhumidars of land admeasuring 19 bighas and 4 biswas bearing Khasra Nos.13/22, 13/23, 13/24 and 26/4 in Village Deoli, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi;
(ii) that the respondents/defendants No.1 & 2 had entered into an Agreement to Sell of the said land with the respondent No.3 Sh. N.K. Jain; it was agreed that the respondents/defendants No.1 & 2 will be paid for the sale of their land @ Rs.60,000/-per acre; they were paid a sum of Rs.24,000/- as part payment and the balance money will be paid to them at the time of registration of the Sale Deed; that the respondents/defendants No.1 & 2 were to obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) from the Competent Authorities as well as the clearance certificate from the Income Tax Authorities;
(iii) that the respondents/defendants No.1 & 2 executed a formal Agreement to Sell dated 23rd March, 1980 in favour of the respondent No.3 Sh. N.K. Jain;
(iv) that the respondents/defendants No.1 & 2 were to sell the land within five months from the dated of execution of Agreement to Sell dated 23rd March, 1980, after excluding the time taken by them in obtaining the necessary clearances from the various authorities; time was thus not the essence of the contract;
(v) that it was further a term of the Agreement to Sell that the Sale Deed would be executed in the name of the respondent No.3 Sh. N.K. Jain or in the name of his nominee;
(vi) that the respondents/defendants No.1 & 2 had till then not obtained the required certificates as they were required to obtain;
(vii) that the respondent No.3 Sh. N.K. Jain had appointed the appellant as his nominee of the Agreement to Sell and the respondents/defendants No.1 & 2 were duly informed thereof;
(viii) that the appellant and the respondent No.3 Sh. N.K. Jain had called upon the respondents/defendants no.1 & 2 to obtain the necessary NOCs and clearances but to no effect;
(ix) that ultimately a registered notice dated 25th February, 1983 was got sent to the respondents/defendants No.1 & 2 calling upon them to complete the sale;
(x) that the said notice was received back unclaimed;
(xi) that the respondents/defendants No.1 & 2, in violation of the Agreement to Sell, were wanting to sell the land to somebody else.
Accordingly, the suit was filed seeking a direction to the respondents/defendants No.1 & 2 to obtain necessary NOCs from the Competent Authorities and clearance certificates from the Income Tax Authorities and to execute and register the Sale Deed in favour of the appellant; alternately, it was pleaded that if the Sale Deed could not be executed in favour of the appellant as the nominee of the respondent No.3 Sh. N.K. Jain, the Sale Deed be got executed in the name of the respondent No.3 Sh. N.K. Jain.
3. Vide interim order dated 14th March, 1983 in the aforesaid suit, the respondents/defendants No.1 & 2 were restrained from alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of the land. The said order was confirmed on 14th September, 1984.
4. The respondents/defendants No.1 & 2 contested the suit by filing written statement, on the grounds:
(a) denying having entered into any Agreement to Sell with the respondent No.3 Sh. N.K. Jain;
(b) it was however pleaded that a person had approached the respondents/defendants No.1 & 2 and represented himself as an employee of the appellant and approached for purchase of the land; that the respondents/defendants No.1 & 2 were wiling to dispose off the land at that stage; the said person offered to
