Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 452
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
J.R. MIDHA, J.
Subhash Chand Aggarwal (Deceased) Thr His Lrs – Appellants
Versus
Yashveer Singh & Anr - Respondents
RFA 354 of 2017 & CM Appl. No. 13287 of 2017
Decided On : 01-02-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. B.K. Sood, Mr. Harish Gaur
Headnote:
The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell an industrial plot. The defendants-respondents resisted the suit on various grounds, including that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that no sale permission was required for the execution of the sale deed. The trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court. The High Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree of specific performance. The court found that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that no sale permission was required for the execution of the sale deed. The court also found that the plaintiff had raised a false claim and that he had misused the process of law. The court dismissed the appeal with costs and issued a show cause notice to the plaintiff to show cause why a complaint should not be made against him for raising a false claim before the court. MAIN LEGAL POINT: A plaintiff is not entitled to a decree of specific performance if he is not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell an industrial plot. The defendants-respondents resisted the suit on various grounds, including that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that no sale permission was required for the execution of the sale deed. The trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree of specific performance. The court found that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that no sale permission was required for the execution of the sale deed. The court also found that the plaintiff had raised a false claim and that he had misused the process of law. The court dismissed the appeal with costs and issued a show cause notice to the plaintiff to show cause why a complaint should not be made against him for raising a false claim before the court.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of specific performance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that no sale permission was required for the execution of the sale deed. The court also found that the plaintiff had raised a false claim and that he had misused the process of law.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs and issued a show cause notice to the plaintiff to show cause why a complaint should not be made against him for raising a false claim before the court.
1. The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 30th January, 2017, whereby their suit for specific performance has been dismissed by the Trial Court. The appellants are the legal representatives of the plaintiff whereas the respondents were the defendants before the learned Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the appellants and the respondents are referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court as “the plaintiff” and “the defendants” respectively.
2. On 29th May, 2004, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendants to purchase an industrial plot in Khasra No. 81/155, measuring 300 sq. yards (6 biswa) situated at village Bakoli, Delhi, hereinafter referred to as “the suit property” for a consideration of Rs.6,06,300/-. The plaintiff paid the earnest money of Rs.1 lakh to the defendants and the balance amount of Rs.5,06,300/- was agreed to be paid on or before 28th July, 2004 at the time of execution and registration of relevant documents in favour of the plaintiff. Relevant portion of the agreement is reproduced hereunder: -
“NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH AS UNDER:
1. That the entire consideration amount of the said property with the lease hold rights of the land under the said property is fixed between the parties at Rs.6,06,300/- (Rupees Six lacs six thousand three hundred only), out of which the first party has received Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), as the earnest money/bayana on dated 29.05.2004, from the second party, prior to the execution of this Agreement the first party doth hereby acknowledge the Receipt of the same, and balance sum of Rs.5,06,300/- (Rupees five lacs six thousand three hundred only) shall be paid by the second party to the first party on or before 28.07.2004, and at the same time the first party shall execute and get regd. relevant documents of the said property in favour of the second party.
2. That the first party shall deliver the vacant possession of the said property at the time of receiving the full and final payment.
3. That the first party hereby assure the second party that the above said property under sale and transfer is free from all kinds of encumbrances i.e. sale, mortgage, gift, liens, legal flaws, courts decrees, court injunctions, court attachments, and there is no other legal defect in the title of the first party and power to sell the same, whatsoever and if it is proved otherwise the first party shall be liable and responsible for the same.
4. That the first party shall apply and get the sale permission for the sale of the said property from the office of the concerned authority, if required and on receipt of the said sale permission, the first party shall execute a proper sale deed of the said property in favour of the second party or his/her nominees and shall get the same registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar Concerned, within one month from the date of receipt of the said sale permission, at the cost of the second party or his/her nominee/s.
5. That any dues, penalties, taxes of he said property for the period prior to handing over the vacant possession of the said property shall be paid and borne by the first party and afterwards by the second party to the concerned authority.
6. That if the first party refuses to sell the said property within stipulated period as mentioned above, then he/she (first party) shall be liable to pay the earnest money as double to the second party, in case if the second party denies to purchase the said property within same time, then his/her/their earnest money/bayana shall be forfeited by the first party and after it the first party shall have right to resell the said property to any person at any rate.” (Emphasis Supplied)
3. On 24th July, 2004, the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 21st July, 2004 to the defendants stating that the defendants had agreed to apply and get the permission for sale of the plot from the concerned authority and the sale deed was to be executed within one month of the
