2016 Supreme(P&H) 39

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
Bal Vir Sehgal – Appellant
Vs.
Sanjay Bansal and others - Respondents
RSA No.2311 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 11.01.2016

Headnote:

Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 03.03.2005 seeking enforcement of agreement by directing the defendant to execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of House No.70, Sector 2, Chandigarh in the office of Sub-Registrar, U.T., Chandigarh and for possession of the said house.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant is the owner of House No.70 Sector 2, Chandigarh. He entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff No.1 in respect of sale of aforesaid house for a total sale consideration of Rs.5 crores. An amount of Rs.50 lacs was paid as earnest amount to the defendant. Plaintiffs further alleged that the plaintiff No.1 informed the defendant that he wants to get the sale deed executed in the names of all the plaintiffs and they were ready to pay the house loan amount which was raised by the defendant from HSBC Bank, Sector 9, Chandigarh. Plaintiff No.1 contacted the defendant several times to accompany him to the aforesaid Bank and also to get the portion vacated from the tenant. On 11.06.2005, the plaintiff No.1 directly approached the Bank along with the due amount for the clearance of the outstanding loan amount raised by the defendant. Since the defendant did not accompany plaintiff No.1 for clearing the dues of the loan, therefore, 'No Due Certificate' could not be obtained from the Bank. Plaintiff No.1 even wrote a letter to the Bank, but the Bank refused to entertain the plaintiff No.1 in the absence of the defendant. Even the Bank did not respond to the letter issued by the plaintiff No.1 (Annexure P2). Plaintiffs received reply dated 24.06.2005 (Annexure P19) to the communication dated 13.06.2005. The said reply was received on 28.06.2005 and was immediately replied back vide Annexure P21 and telegram message (Annexure P22) dated 28.06.2005. Defendant was not ready to cooperate with the plaintiffs despite the fact that target date for execution of sale deed was 30.06.2005. Ultimately plaintiffs informed the defendant to remain present in the office of Sub-Registrar, U.T., Chandigarh on 30.06.2005 for the execution and registration of the sale deed. No response was given by the defendant and after waiting upto 29.06.2005, plaintiffs attended the office of Sub-Registrar on 30.06.2005. Plaintiffs were/are always ready and willing to perform their part of obligation and were ready with the balance sale consideration in terms of agreement and on the target date they were ready with the expenses required to be borne by them towards stamp duty and registration charges. Plaintiffs had already approached their Banker for raising loan, to pay the amount of sale consideration to the defendant. Punjab National Bank, Sector 33, Chandigarh had even sanctioned the loan, amounting to Rs.2.25 crores for the purchase of the house in question in terms of the letter dated 24.06.2005 (Annexure P27). Plaintiffs kept the required amount for payment of the house loan to HSBC Bank and balance sale consideration along with charges towards stamp papers and registration. Plaintiffs went to the office of Sub-Registrar on 30.06.2005 at 3.00 p.m. and remained there upto 5.00 p.m. Plaintiffs got an affidavit attested from the Sub-Registrar as token of their presence in the office vide Annexure P28. Defendant received letter dated 21.06.2005 (Annexure P29) from the Estate Office in response to the submission of liability affidavit by them. The defendant had never approached the Estate Office for seeking permission to sell the house in question. Plaintiffs were surprised to receive a letter dated 06.07.2005 written by the defendant on concocted premise. A false story has been concocted just to make out a false ground to back out from the bargain. Thereafter the present suit came to be filed for the decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 03.03.2005.

Finding of the Court:

The suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 03.03.2005 was maintainable. The plaintiffs had privity of contract with the defendant. The plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The defendant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The time was not the essence of the contract. The escalation of the price of the property was not a ground to deny the specific performance of the agreement. The plaintiffs were entitled to get the sale deed executed on the basis of collector's rate prevailing as on today of the property in dispute.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 03.03.2005, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Relief.

Ratio Decidendi: The suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell was maintainable as the plaintiffs had privity of contract with the defendant, they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, the defendant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the time was not the essence of the contract, and the escalation of the price of the property was not a ground to deny the specific performance of the agreement. The plaintiffs were entitled to get the sale deed executed on the basis of collector's rate prevailing as on today of the property in dispute.

Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with the modification that the plaintiffs were entitled to get the sale deed executed on the basis of collector's rate prevailing as on today of the property in dispute.