Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
Sachin Talwar — Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Agrawal — Respondent
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 516 of 2017
Decided on : 02-09-2019
specific performance - agreement to sell - Delhi High Court - [Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 10, Section 16, Section 20] - The court decreed specific performance of the agreement to sell, highlighting the plaintiff's earnest performance and the defendant's non-bonafide conduct in failing to complete the obligation. The court directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration with interest, and upon deposit, the defendant was to execute the sale deed and deliver possession. In default, the court empowered the officer/Joint Registrar to execute the sale deed and hand over possession to the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell a property, alleging that the defendant, a builder, failed to execute the sale deed despite receiving substantial payments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had earnestly performed his part of the agreement and was entitled to specific performance due to the defendant's non-bonafide conduct.
Issues: The court considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the agreement or a refund of the money with interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff's earnest performance and the defendant's failure to complete the obligation, coupled with the defendant's continued possession of the property, led the court to grant specific performance.
Final Decision: The court decreed specific performance in favor of the plaintiff, directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration with interest. Upon deposit, the defendant was to execute the sale deed and deliver possession. In default, the court empowered the officer/Joint Registrar to execute the sale deed and hand over possession to the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT :
Mukta Gupta, J.
By the present suit the plaintiff, inter alia, seeks a decree of specific performance for the agreement to sell dated 11th March, 2016 further extended by the supplementary agreement/ MOU dated 30th September, 2016 and 6th April, 2016 by receiving the balance consideration of Rs.20 lakhs thereby transferring the suit property by executing a registered sale deed and handing-over peaceful and vacant possession of suit property. In the alternative a money decree for a sum of Rs.1,04,00,000/- along with interest, a decree of permanent injunction and cost.
2. Case of the plaintiff is that the defendant who is a builder is the owner and in possession of an immovable property, i.e., entire ground floor (without roof rights) with common passage and separate water and electricity connection along with proportionate share of land underneath in respect of property No. 23-A, a plot measuring 150 Sq. Yds. (125.4 Sq. Mts.), Satyawati Nagar, Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ill, Delhi-110052, situated in the erstwhile land of Village Sidhora Kalan (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property").
3. According to the agreement to sell & purchase dated 11th March 2016 defendant agreed to sell the suit property to plaintiff for total consideration of Rs.70,00,000/-. In order to repose confidence of the plaintiff, defendant handed him over the original registered sale deed dated 28th December 2015 which was executed by the erstwhile owner Sh. Om Prakash in his favour.
4. Besides paying a sum of Rs.25 lakhs at the time of entering into agreement to sell, the plaintiff paid a further sum of Rs.20 lakhs in various installments and the balance amount of Rs.20 lakhs was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed to be executed finally on or before 31st May, 2017. On 25th May, 2017 the plaintiff intimated to the defendant that he would be reaching the office of Sub-Registrar VI-A, Pitampura, Delhi on 30th May, 2017 at 10.00 AM where he reached with the necessary documents and demand draft of the balance payment of Rs.20 lakhs, however the defendant failed to appear, hence no sale deed could be executed. Plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 3rd June, 2017 calling upon the defendant to abide by the agreement dated 11th March, 2016 which was duly delivered at his residential address by courier. However, the defendant failed to act nor responded to the notice, hence the suit.
5. Summons in the suit were issued to the defendant vide order dated 8th August, 2019 when this Court also directed parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property. Despite service of summons, none entered appearance on behalf of the defendant and hence defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 8th February, 2019 and the matter was listed for framing of issues on 30th April, 2019. By order dated 30th April, 2019 the following issues were settled.
(ii) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated 11.03.2016? (OPP)
(iii) Relief."
6. In his affidavit by way of evidence which was tendered vide Ex.PW-1/X, the plaintiff who appeared in the witness box reiterated the contents of the plaint. He also exhibited the site plan of the suit property vide Ex.PW-1/1, copy of the agreement to sell and purchase dated 11th March, 2016 as Ex.PW-1/2 and copy of the registered sale deed dated 28th December, 2015 of the suit property in favour of the defendant as Ex.PW-1/3.
7. The initial sum of Rs.20 lakhs was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in the form of a RTGS for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs dated 11th March, 2016 through ICICI Bank and a cheque for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs dated 11th March, 2016 drawn on ICICI Bank. A rece
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
