Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Valmiki J.Mehta, J.
Harvinder Pal Singh & Ors. —Plaintiffs
versus
S.K.Mukherjee & Ors. —Defendants
CS(OS) No.572 of 2006 & CS(OS) No.380 of 2009
Decided on 21.8.2015
(ii) Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 20 (3) — Specific Performance — Discretionary relief of — Once 70% of total sale consideration paid — HELD — Unless there grave reasons and circumstances to decline specific performance — Court would ordinarily grant specific performance of contract for reason that 70% amount received by proposed sellers at relevant point of time could/would invested by them — As per their choice including in immovable property — With related proposition that if this amount remained with proposed buyers then proposed sellers would have suffered disadvantage of not utilizing these moneys for investing in immovable property. [Para 15]
(iii) Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 20 (3) — Specific Performance — Discretionary relief of — If substantial amount of total sale consideration would not paid to proposed sellers — Then proposed buyers would have got benefit of returns on this substantial amount of total sale consideration — Which would remained in their hands — HELD — Whether of proposed sellers not having moneys in their pockets — Which they therefore could not have invested in immovable property and proposed sellers having money in their pockets — Which they could have invested in immovable property — Once such substantial consideration received by them — Specific performance ought to be granted in favour of proposed buyers and against proposed sellers. [Para 15]
(iv) Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 20 (3) — Specific Performance — Discretionary relief of — Proposed buyers middle class persons — Since 70% of total sale consideration already stood paid and reasonable evidence led to show payment of balance sale consideration — HELD — Plaintiffs established their readiness and willingness and financial capacity to pay balance sale consideration — Proposed buyers by preponderance of probabilities have proved that they had with them necessary finances for making payment of the balance sale consideration — Plaintiffs/proposed buyers held to be ready and willing to perform their part of contract. [Para 27]
Result: Suit decreed in favour of proposed buyers
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.—Two suits are being disposed of by the present judgment, being CS(OS) No. 572/2006 and CS(OS) No. 380/2009. The 2006 suit is a suit for specific performance. The suit of 2009 is a counter suit by the proposed sellers seeking back possession of the property which was agreed to be sold in terms of the Agreement to Sell dated 21.10.2004. It is conceded before me on behalf of the plaintiffs/proposed sellers in the 2009 suit namely Sh. S.K. Mukherjee and Smt. Neelam Mukherjee that if the 2006 suit is decreed, then automatically the 2009 suit would stand dismissed. The proposed purchasers under the Agreement to Sell dated 21.10.2004 are Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh Dua and Smt. Harjinder Kaur, and who are the plaintiffs in CS(OS) No. 570/2006. In this suit the defendants are Sh. S.K. Mukherjee and Smt. Neelam Mukherjee, who are proposed sellers under the Agreement to Sell dated 21.10.2004, and they are the plaintiffs in CS(OS) No. 380/2009. The Agreement to Sell is with respect to ground floor and first floor of the property bearing no.8/70, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi-110 026 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’). The sale consideration fixed under the Agreement to Sell dated 21.10.2004 is a sum of Rs.91,51,000/- (Rupees ninety one lac and fifty one thousand only).
2. These two matters were on the ‘Finals’ Board of this Court since 29.06.2015. Yesterday when the matters were heard, the matters were effective item nos.1 and 2 on the ‘Finals’ Board. Since no one appeared for the proposed buyers being plaintiffs in CS(OS) No. 572/2006, I heard the counsel for the defendants/proposed sellers, Sh. S.K. Mukherjee and Smt. Neelam Mukherjee. I have also gone through the entire record with the assistance of the counsel for the proposed sellers being defendants in CS(OS) No. 572/2006. Since there was no time yesterday to dictate the judgment on account of a Full Court Reference, the matters were adjourned to today for dictating the judgment.
3. The facts of the case are that the parties admittedly entered into the Agreement to Sell on 21.10.2004 with respect to the suit property. It is also admitted that the agreed sale consideration was Rs.91,51,000/- (Rupees ninety one lacs and fifty one thousand only) and out of which amount, a sum of Rs. 10,21,000/- (Rupees ten lacs and twenty one thousand only) was paid by the proposed buyers to the proposed sellers on 21.10.2004 (receipt Ex.PW-1/2/Ex.PW1/2). It is also the agreed position that thereafter three payments were made by the proposed buyers to the proposed sellers; Rs.25,30,000/- (Rupees twenty five lacs and thirty thousand only) on 30.11.2004 (receipt Ex.P-5/Ex.PW-1/6), Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lacs only) on 03.01.2005 (receipt Ex.P-3/Ex.PW-1/4) and another sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lacs only) which as per the proposed buyers was paid on 11.03.2005, whereas, the proposed sellers say that this payment of Rs.15 lacs was made but actually the date of payment was of 01.03.2005 and not 11.03.2005 inasmuch as the numerical ‘1’ before 1.3.2005 has been added to the date of this document afterwards by the proposed buyers. This receipt of Rs.15 lacs is Ex.P-4/Ex.PW-1/5.
4. The dispute between the parties is as to who has committed breach of contract i.e whether the proposed buyers failed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.26 lacs as envisaged as per the payment date/period under the Agreement to Sell or it is that the proposed sellers refused to accept the balance sale consideration, and which is the case of the proposed buyers.
5. In the suit for specific performance filed by the proposed buyers CS(OS) No. 572/2006, issues were framed on 6.1.2010 and these issues read as under:-
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance directing the defendant to execute the sale deed of the Ground Floor and First Floor of suit property bearing no.8/70, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi-26 and if so, its effect? OPP
2. Reli
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
