The unregistered sale agreement could not prevail over the attachment order, leading to the dismissal of the specific performance relief. However, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for recovery of the sale consideration paid by him along with compensatory interest.

JUDGMENT :

(Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. read with Order IV Rule 1 of the High Court Original Side Rules praying for:-

(i) To direct the defendant to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff regarding the suit schedule property;

(ii) To direct the Registrar of this Court to execute and register the sale deed on behalf of the defendant;

(iii) To direct the defendant to refund Rs.4.50 crores with interest at the rate of 18% creating a charge on the suit property in case this Court declares that the plaintiff is not entitled to the main relief of specific performance of agreement dated 17.12.2009.)

1. Brief facts set out in the plaint are as follows:-

The defendant is the owner of the suit property by virtue of a sale deed dated 27.08.2004. The defendant entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit property on 17.12.2009 with the plaintiff and agreed to sell the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.4 crores and 50 lakhs. The plaintiff issued a cheque dated 17.12.2009 for the aforesaid sum in favour of the defendant. The statement of accounts of the plaintiff would show that the cheque was encashed. The defendant agreed to execute the sale deed as and when requested by the plaintiff without making any further demand. At the time of agreement itself he handed over the original sale deed dated 27.08.2004 and copies of other parent documents to the plaintiff. Despite the sale agreement was an unregistered one, the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property for the purpose of protecting and maintaining the same. The plaintiff has been demanding the defendant to execute the sale deed but the defendant was protracting to execute the sale deed on some pretext or other. The defendant avoided the phones and evaded to meet the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 03.08.2012 and the same was received by the defendant on 06.08.2012. Even after the receipt of the legal notice the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed. He did not send a reply also. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance. The plaintiff is ready and willing to pay stamp duty and registration expenses. The plaintiff has deployed the security persons to take care of the property and he has paid the property tax for 4½ years to the tune of Rs.8,936/- and electricity charges of Rs.3,724/-. He has spent a sum of Rs.72,000/- towards security charges. The plaintiff prays to pass a judgment and decree for specific performance or in the alternate a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.4.50 crores with interest at the rate 18% by creating a charge on the suit property.

2. Brief facts set out in the written statement are as follows:-

The alleged agreement of sale deed dated 17.12.2009 was not executed as stated by the plaintiff. The said agreement is an unregistered and under stamped one and hence it should not be relied on for any purpose. The plaintiff has filed this frivolous suit just in order to deceive the defendant without paying the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff is in illegal possession of the suit property and the defendant reserves his right to pursue other remedies in order to vacate him from the suit property. The plaintiff never approached the defendant for executing the sale deed. It is false to state that the plaintiff was paying the property tax and other charges for the suit property. The defendant is not bound to refund any amount to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit should be dismissed.

3. Brief facts set out in the Additional Written are as follows:-

The sale agreement dated 17.12.2009 was never acted upon. Since the plaintiff suffered heavy loss and the defendant helped him by lending money. The same would reflect in the income tax returns filed by both the plaintiff and the defendant. It is the defendant who had transferred money to the tune of