RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The plaintiff seeks decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale of immovable property under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The application has been filed after the framing of issues.

.2. The plaintiff instituted the suit on 19th January, 2004 on the averments that the defendant had vide agreement to sell dated 15th February, 2001 agreed to sell the full terrace rights above the second floor of the building situated on plot of land admeasuring 725 square yards and bearing No. 33, NH-IV, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi 110 024 for a total sale consideration of Rs 40 lacs out of which the plaintiff had paid Rs 15 lacs at the time of agreement to sell on 15th February, 2001 and remaining sale consideration was payable at the time of execution of the sale deed after conversion of lease hold rights in the land underneath into freehold. The plaintiff claimed that on 15th February, 2001 the defendant in part performance of the agreement to sell had handed over the vacant, physical possession of the said open terrace to the plaintiff and which fact was also mentioned in the agreement to sell. Besides the agreement to sell, a receipt and an affidavit, also stated to have been executed by the defendant on 15th February, 2001, have also been filed. The agreement to sell provided that the defendant, after obtaining of the requisite permissions, will inform the plaintiff within a period of 12 months by registered AD letter and also send photocopies of the said permissions and the defendant will take the balance sale consideration from the plaintiff at the time of registration of the sale deed within 60 days of the receipt of the said registered AD letter. The plaint further avers that on the request of the defendant the plaintiff gave a further sum of Rs 8 lacs to the defendant on 10th April, 2001 for which also a receipt was issued; it is averred that the defendant had represented that the said amount was required by him for getting the leasehold rights in the land converted into freehold. As per the plaint, the defendant failed to perform his part of the agreement and to get the requisite permissions for execution of the sale deed; that on 15th February, 2002 the defendant had issued a letter to the plaintiff unequivocally acknowledging that he had not been able to complete the formalities for registration of the sale deed. The plaintiff claims that on 1st March, 2003 he noticed from outside that he may have been dispossessed from the terrace aforesaid and on attempts was not allowed by the defendant to go up to the terrace. The said instances are averred to have been repeated on 8th March, 2003. Para 11 of the plaint is important and is reproduced hereinbelow: That on 16.03.2003 the plaintiff along with his father and Shri Gurinder Singh met the defendant at his office there at about 11.30 a.m. and requested him to return the Rs.23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Only) received by the defendant from the plaintiff along with interest in case the defendant does not wish to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement to sell dated 15.02.2001. The defendant got flared up and asked his goons to physically throw out the plaintiff, his father and Shri Gurinder Singh ...

3. The plaintiff claims to have lodged a complaint with the police on 17th March, 2003 and upon the failure of the police to take action, approached the Metropolitan Magistrate and as per whose directions FIR was registered against the defendant on 16th April, 2003. The plaintiff thus claimed the relief of specific performance by directing the defendant to obtain various permissions and clearances and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with the terrace aforesaid and a money decree for damages of Rs 3 lacs with interest at 26% per annum from 6th December, 2003 till the date of realization as well as pendente lite damages of Rs 30,000/- per month. The plaintiff also claims an alternative relief of recovery of Rs 23 lacs a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document