Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
Rajesh - Appellant
Versus
M/S Pienne Industrial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
RFA No. 654 of 2017
Decided On : 21-09-2017
Specific Performance - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Order XII Rule 6 - Section 96 - Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the specific performance of an agreement to sell a share of land. The plaintiff sought specific performance of the agreement, claiming to have paid the entire sale consideration, while the defendant disputed the amount of the sale consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's plea regarding the sale consideration was contrary to the contents of the admitted documents and was barred by Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court also rejected the argument that the suit for specific performance could not be filed based on an unregistered agreement to sell.
Issues: The main issues included the determination of the sale consideration, possession of the property, entitlement to specific performance, declaration, mandatory injunction, and permanent injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a party to a written agreement cannot dispute the contents of the written terms unless falling under the Provisos to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. Additionally, the court clarified that an unregistered agreement to sell can be considered in a suit seeking specific performance.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff for specific performance.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
C.M. Appl. No. 26342/2017 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
C.M. Appl. No. 26341/2017 (for extension of time to file Court fees)
Since Court fees has been deposited by the appellant, the C.M. stands disposed of.
C.M. Appl. No. 26340/2017 (for delay)
This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 79 days in filing the appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed and the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
RFA No. 654/2017 and C.M. Appl. No. 26339/2017 (for stay)
1. This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) by the defendant in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 1.2.2017 by which the trial court has decreed the suit for specific performance, injunction, etc. under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit for specific performance seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 1.6.2011. Originally the agreement to sell between the parties was entered into on 20.4.2011 and thereafter the fresh agreement to sell dated 1.6.2011 superseded the first agreement to sell. The subject matter of the agreement to sell, and therefore the suit is 1/8th share of the appellant/defendant in the suit property comprising total land of 36 bighas and 5 biswas situated in Khasra no. 24/11(South)(1-2), 20(South)(2-3), 21(South)(2-3)25//15(East)(2-6), 16(East)(4-13), 25 (East)(4-13), 26//17(South)(0-6), 18(South)(1-12), 23(4-14), 24(4-16), 28//4(North)(2-1), 29//5(East)(4-5) and 13//1(1-11) within the revenue estate of Village Badu Sarai, Tehsil Kapashera, New Dehli. As per the agreement to sell dated 20.4.2011 total sale consideration was Rs.1,01,35,000/-. Respondent/plaintiff is pleaded to have paid a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- at the time of entering into the agreement to sell dated 20.4.2011. Respondent/plaintiff pleaded further payment of Rs.5,00,000/- on 12.5.2011 and the entire balance sale consideration by 1.6.2011 in terms of the following cheques:-
“(i) Rs.14,50,000/- through cheque No. 580681 dated 21.4.2011 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Bijwasan, New Delhi in favour of defendant i.e. Rajesh paid on 20.4.2011.
(ii) Rs.50,000/- in cash to defendant on 20.04.2011.
(iii) Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque No. 874295 dated 12.5.2011 drawn on The Bank of Rajasthan, Kailash Colony, New Delhi in favour of defendant i.e. Rajesh paid on 12.05.2011.
(iv) Rs.81,35,000/- through cheque No. 005163 dated 01.06.2011 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., Kailash Colony, New Delhi in favour of defendant i.e. Rajesh paid on 01.06.2011.”
3. It was the further case of the respondent/plaintiff that on receipt of the entire sale consideration a fresh agreement to sell dated 1.6.2011 was entered into by the parties and when also a Special Power of Attorney was given in favour of Sh. Vidhu Sharma who was the son of Sh. Prem Raj Sharma, Director of the respondent/plaintiff company, and which Power of Attorney is a registered Power of Attorney. Respondent/plaintiff company pleaded that the appellant/defendant wrongly has sought to cancel the registered Power of Attorney and cancellation of the registered Power of Attorney was refused by the Sub-Registrar vide his order dated 20.3.2015. Respondent/plaintiff pleaded that appellant/defendant had no right to cancel the registered Special Power of Attorney dated 1.6.2011 issued in favour of Sh. Vidhu Sharma and since the appellant/defendant has received the entire sale consideration the suit for specific performance should be decreed.
4. The appellant/defendant filed his written statement and did not deny execution of the agreement to sell dated 20.4.2011 as also the subsequent agreement to sell dated 1.6.2011. The appellant/defendant also does not deny receipt of the sale consideration of Rs.1,01,35,000/-. The appellant/defendant however pleaded that 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
