Delhi District Court
Smt. Shahjahan vs Smt. Mahsar Jahan on 28 August, 2017
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
Presided by :SH. RAVINDER SINGH
CS No. 1473/2016
(Old no. CS(OS) 2018/2012)
Unique I.D No. 02402C0008682016
Smt. Shahjahan
W/o Mohd. Aabid
R/o H. No. 118, Gali no. 1,
Aram Park, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi110031.
...............Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Mahsar Jahan
W/o Sh. Mohd. Wajid
R/o H. No. G570, Gali no. 1,
Aram Park, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi110031.
........ Defendant
Date of Institution : 25/05/2012
Order reserved on : 23/08/2017
Order passed on : 28/08/2017
Suit for specific performance
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of instant suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23/12/2011 which has been filed by CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 1/22 Smt. Shahjahan (hereinafter referred as plaintiff) against Smt. Mahsar Jahan (hereinafter referred as defendant).
2. The facts set out by the plaintiff in her suit are that defendant agreed to sell her property bearing no. G570, Gali no.1, Aram Park, Shastri Nagar, Delhi110031 measuring 30 sq. yards alongwith entire structure (herein after referred as 'suit property') for consideration of Rs.37,00,000/ vide agreement to sell dated 23/12/2011. Plaintiff claimed that she had paid Rs.3,00,000/ as earnest money to defendant on the date of execution of agreement and remaining amount of Rs.34,00,000/ was payable to the defendant within fixed period upto 23/05/2012 or at the time of delivery of vacant possession of the suit property and execution of sale deed in her favour. Plaintiff claimed that in term of agreement to sell, she approached the defendant as she was ready with the balance amount of Rs.34,00,000/ and requested her to remain present in the office of Subregistrar on 09/05/2012 at 10.00 AM. Plaintiff also alleged that she also sent notice to the defendant in this regard vide speed post, registered AD on 04/05/2012. Further plaintiff alleged that in term of said intimation she went to the Subregistrar office on 09/05/2012 with balance cash but defendant did not come there hence she again informed her to reach Sub CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 2/22 registrar office, Shashtri Nagar, Delhi on 15/05/2012 vide her notice dated 11/05/2012 but defendant did not give any reply to her notice yet she went there on 15/05/2012 and waited for the defendant who did not turn up so she got deposited Rs.100/ vide receipt no. 5308 in the Subregistrar office. Plaintiff alleged that defendant replied her notice dated 04/05/2012 through advocate Sh. Rakshpal Singh, whereby she denied the execution of agreement to sell dated 23/12/2011 and receipt of earnest money of Rs.3,00,000/. Plaintiff claimed that she approached defendant within stipulated time with balance amount, but defendant failed to perform her part of contract. Further plaintiff claimed that she is always ready and willing to perform her part of contract and according plaintiff filed suit for following reliefs: "Pass a decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23/12/2011 entered into between the parties with respect to the property no. G570, Gali no. 1, Aram Park, Shastri Nagar, Delhi110031 and directing the defendant to complete the transaction by executing the sale deed and getting the same registered in favour of plaintiff of payment of balance consideration and also to further put the plaintiff in possession of the aforesaid property agreed to be sold to her and in case, the defendant fail to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in that eventuality, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to execute the sale deed of the property in suit in favour of the plaintiff and further to take all steps to put plaintiff in possession of the property in suit agreed to be sold."
CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 3/22
3. Defendant filed her written statement stating therein that the suit is based on false, frivolous and concocted facts. Defendant claimed that she has not executed any alleged agreement to sell on 23/12/2011 nor has ever received any alleged amount of Rs.3,00,000/ from the plaintiff. Defendant claimed that plaintiff is residing in her locality, therefore, she had family relation. Defendant claimed that she required passport as she wanted to go to Hazz so plaintiff's husband Mohd. Abid assured her to get her passport prepared through one dealer namely Sh. Aashiq Malik. Defendant further alleged that in the first week of December 2011, she visited the office of Sh. Aashiq Malik with plaintiff's husband where she provided all her documents except date of birth certificate hence the said Sh. Aashiq Malik and plaintiff's husband obtained her signature on blank stamp paper and on plain paper to get attested her affidavit from the concerned SDM for preparation of her date of birth certificate and for surety/witness Sh. Aashiq Malik called her son namely Shehjad and obtained his signatures on plain blank paper, where she has already put her thumb impression and signature in Urdu language. Defendant claimed that initially she paid a sum of Rs.2,000/ to Sh. Aashiq Malik and remaining amount of Rs.3,000/ was to be paid by her after preparation of passport. Further defendant claimed that after passing of more than two and half month, she was CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 4/22 informed by Sh. Aashiq Malik that her application for passport was rejected. Defendant claimed that Sh. Aashiq Malik has not refunded her amount of Rs.2,000/ till date and she received the legal notice dated 04/05/2012 on 09/05/2012 whereby she came to know about alleged agreement to sell/earnest money of Rs.3,00,000/. Defendant claimed that the alleged agreement to sell is forged and fabricated and same was prepared by the plaintiff, her husband and the said Sh. Aashiq Malik in order to extort money by dragging her into the false and frivolous litigation. Defendant claimed that she duly replied the legal notice of plaintiff vide her reply dated 14/05/2012. Accordingly, defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. Plaintiff filed replication wherein she stated that defendant has concocted the story of preparation of her passport for going to Hajj so as to avoid the specific performance of agreement to sell. Further plaintiff denied the other contents of written statement and reiterated the averments made in plaint.
5. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 29/08/2013:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 23rd December, CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 5/22 2011 in respect of the suit property? (OPP)
2. Whether the defendant has not executed any Agreement to sell dated 23rd December, 2011? (OPD)
3. Relief.
6. In support of his case, plaintiff examined three witnesses i.e. she herself as PW1, Sh. Raj Kumar as PW2 and Sh. Ashiq Malik as PW3. 6A. PW1 led her evidence on affidavit Ex. PW1/A. She generally deposed on the same lines of her plaint. PW1 relied upon agreement to sell dated 23/12/2011 as Ex. PW1/1, notice dated 04/05/2012 as Ex. PW1/2, postal receipts regarding dispatch of notice as Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/5, AD card as Ex. PW1/6, receipt regarding her presence at SubRegistrar office on 09/05/2012 as Ex. PW1/7, copy of notice dated 11/05/2012 as Ex. PW1/8, postal receipts as Ex. PW1/9 and Ex. PW1/10, receipt regarding her presence in office of Subregistrar on 15/05/2012 as Ex. PW1/11 (wrongly marked on postal receipt instead of Subregistrar's office receipt no. 5529 dated 15/05/2012 which is on record). It is pertinent that documents are marked as AW1/1 to AW1/11 in place of Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/11 respectively. CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 6/22 6B. PW2 deposed on affidavit Ex. PW2/A that the transaction of sale purchase of the suit property between plaintiff and defendant was took place on 23/12/2011 in presence of himself, defendant's son Sh. Shehjad and Sh. Aashiq Malik. He further deposed that defendant received earnest money of Rs. 3 lacs out of total consideration amount of Rs.37,00,000/ in presence of him, defendant's son and Sh. Aashiq Malik. He further deposed that both parties signed the agreement to sell Ex.PW1/1 in his presence. Further he and son of defendant Shehjad also signed agreement to sell Ex. PW1/1 which bears his signatures at point A. 6C. PW3 also deposed on affidavit Ex. PW3/A that he dealt the transaction of suit property on commission basis as defendant and her son wanted to sell the same. Further he deposed that agreement to sell Ex.PW1/1 was prepared and same was signed by parties, son of defendant Shehjad and witness Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma in his presence. He also deposed that plaintiff paid Rs. Three lacs to the defendant out of total consideration amount of Rs.37 lacs on that day.
CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 7/22
7. After examination of plaintiff witnesses, defendant examined two witnesses i.e. she herself as DW1 and her son Mohd. Shehjad as DW2. 7A. DW1 deposed on affidavit Ex. DW1/A. She generally deposed on the same line of her written statement. DW1 relied upon her reply dated 14/05/2012 Ex. DW1/1 to the notice of plaintiff dated 04/05/2012. 7B. DW2 also deposed on affidavit Ex. DW2/A. DW2 deposed on the same lines of his mother DW1.
8. I have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Ld. Counsel for defendant and perused their written arguments as well as the case file.
9. The facts which are admitted and not in dispute are as under:
(i). Plaintiff and defendant are known to each other.
(ii). Agreement to sell Ex. PW1/1 bears signature and thumb impression of defendant.
(iii). Ex.PW1/1 also bears the signature of defendant's son Sh.
Shehjad/DW2.
(iv) The stamp paper of Ex. PW1/1 is in the name of defendant.
CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 8/22
(v) Defendant had received the notice of plaintiff dated 04/05/2012 Ex. PW1/2.
(vi) Defendant sent the reply to the notice of plaintiff dated 04/05/2012 vide her reply dated 14/05/2012 Ex.PW1/D1 (Ex. DW1/1).
(vii) Defendant did not go to the office of Subregistrar on 09/05/2014 in term of notice Ex. PW1/2.
10. My issuewise findings are as under: Issue no. 2
a) The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant so to discharge her onus she as DW1 deposed that she required passport as she wanted to go to Hazz and plaintiff's husband Mohd. Abid assured her to get her passport prepared through one dealer namely Sh. Aashiq Malik. DW1 also deposed that plaintiff's husband took her to the office of Sh. Aashiq Malik in the first week of December 2011 and he obtained her signature on blank stamp paper and on plain paper to get her affidavit attested from the concerned SDM for preparation of her date of birth certificate. DW1 also deposed that Sh. Aashiq Malik called her son DW2 and obtained his signatures on plain blank paper being surety/witness.
CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 9/22 During her cross examination, DW1 admitted her signature at point B and C of agreement to sell Ex. PW1/1. DW1 also admitted that her son was present when she put her signature and her son also signed the same. DW 1 admitted that she has received the notice of plaintiff Ex. PW1/2. DW1 admitted that she replied the notice Ex. PW1/2 vide her reply dated 14/05/2012 Ex. PW1/D1. DW1 also deposed that she had told her counsel at the time of reply Ex. PW1/D1 that she signed Ex. PW1/1 regarding her passport.
b) DW2 deposed that he signed the blank plain paper as a surety / witness for the preparation of passport of her mother.
During his cross examination, DW2 admitted that plaintiff sent notice calling upon his mother to sub registrar office to execute necessary documents against receipt of balance consideration amount and to deliver the possession of the suit property. He also deposed that they have disclosed to their counsel replying to the notice vide reply Ex. PW1/D1 that Ex. PW1/1 was signed regarding passport. DW2 deposed that they did not make any complaint to the police.
CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 10/22
c) PW1 deposed that defendant was agreed to sell the suit property so agreement to sell Ex.PW1/1 was executed on 23/12/2011. PW1 also deposed that besides other witnesses, defendant's son also signed as witness to the Ex. PW1/1. PW1 also deposed that she has paid Rs.3 lacs to defendant as earnest money on very same day and the said fact is very much mentioned in the Ex. PW1/1.
d) PW2 deposed that transaction of the sale purchase of the suit property was taken place on 23/12/2011 in presence of him as well as commission agent Sh. Aashiq Malik and son of defendant Sh. Sehjad. According to PW2, plaintiff paid Rs.Three lacs as earnest money out of sale consideration of Rs.37lacs to the defendant. He and defendant's son/ DW2 was the attesting witness of agreement to sell Ex. PW1/1.
e) Further PW3 deposed that the transaction of sale purchase of the suit property was done through him between plaintiff and defendant. He deposed that plaintiff paid Rs. Three lacs as earnest money to the defendant out of total consideration of Rs.37 lacs in his presence and agreement to sell Ex .PW1/1 CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 11/22 was signed by the parties to the suit and son of defendant and one Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma in his presence.
f) Now, it is to be seen whether signature & thumb impression of DW1 and her son /DW2 was obtained on blank stamp paper and plain paper and hence an agreement to sell Ex. PW1/1 was not executed by defendant.
g) It is admitted by DW1 and DW2 that they have disclosed the counsel who prepared the reply Ex. PW1/D1 that DW1 has signed blank stamp paper and plain paper for preparation of passport of DW1 but interestingly this fact has not been mentioned in reply Ex. PW1/D1.
h) Accordingly to DW1, Sh. Aashiq Malik obtained her signature and thumb impression on blank stamp paper and plain paper and further he also obtained signature of his son/DW2 on blank plain paper in garb of preparation of her birth certificate. It is pertinent that Sh. Aashiq Malik who deposed as PW3 has not been cross examined by defendant on this aspect. Further no suggestion was put to him regarding obtaining DW1 and DW2's signature on blank stamp paper and plain paper.
CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 12/22
i) It is pertinent that till date, defendant has not filed any complaint against Sh. Aashiq Malik, plaintiff's husband for misusing her signatures. Further even she has not filed any counter claim or suit for declaration of agreement to sell Ex. PW1/1 as null and void.
j) Further perusal of Ex. PW1/1 reveals that it is signed in running script as DW1 put her signature and thumb impression over the space provided i.e. in between just below the end of paragraph and the last line of page i.e. Contd. ...2p on the first page of Ex. PW1/1. Further DW1 put her signature and thumb impression over the space provided i.e. in between just below the end of paragraph and the 'FIRST PARTY/SELLER' on the second page of Ex. PW1/1. So in no way DW1 signed the blank stamp paper or blank plain paper.
k) One of the argument of Ld. Counsel for defendant that the testimony of PW1 and PW2 is not reliable as PW1 deposed that Ex. PW1/1 was typed on the same day when it was purchased i.e. 16/12/2011 whereas PW2 deposed that stamp paper was purchased on same day on 23/12/2011 but in actual the stamp paper Ex. PW1/1 was issued on 16/12/2011 in the name of defendant. CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 13/22
l) It is pertinent that PW1 has not deposed that Ex. PW1/1 was executed on the day when stamp paper was purchased. Further PW2 has not claimed that he purchased the stamp paper of Ex. PW1/1. So the testimony of PW1 and PW2 regarding purchase of stamp paper is not contrary. It is the admitted case of defendant that she has signed and put her thumb impression not only stamp paper but also on a paper. It is not her case that she purchased the stamp paper and handed over the same to Sh. Aashiq Malik for preparation of her date of birth certificate. She has signed only on single stamp paper. PW3 deposed that defendant approached him first at his shop for sale of her property and deal was finalized after 1012 days. So it is possible that stamp paper was purchased prior to finalization of the deal in the name of defendant. Hence it is no matter that the stamp paper bear the date as 16/12/2011. In view of above, I find no force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel for defendant.
m) It is pertinent to mention that no suggestion has been put to either PW2 or PW3 that amount of Rs. Three lacs was not paid by plaintiff to defendant in their presence. The testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 are consistence and corroborated to the effect that the deal of the sale purchase of the suit property was finalized on 23/12/2011 and an agreement to sell Ex. PW1/1 was executed CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 14/22 in this regard and PW2 and DW2 are the attesting witnesses of the same and plaintiff paid earnest money of Rs. Three lacs to the defendant on very same day.
n) In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that defendant has filed to prove that she has not executed agreement to sell Ex. PW1/1 on 23/12/2011. Accordingly, the aforesaid issue is decided against the defendant.
Issue no. 1.
a) Ld. Counsel for plaintiff contended that plaintiff is /was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract and her financial capacity reflects from that fact that she has deposited Rs.17 lacs in term of order of court dated 25/07/2012. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further contended that plaintiff sent notice Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/8 to defendant showing her readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract and further she reached to the office of Subregistrar on 09/05/2012 and 15/05/2012 alongwith balance sale consideration and marked her presence by depositing Rs.100/ vide receipt Ex. CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 15/22 PW1/7 and Ex. PW1/11 but on both dates, defendant was not reached there to perform her part.
b) On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for defendants contended that plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his case as he has not led any evidence to show that he was ever ready and willing to perform her part of contract as plaintiff has no source of income. She is house wife and she had no amount to pay.
c). Plaintiff filed instant suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23/12/2011 Ex. PW1/1. In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff has to prove
(a) a valid sale agreement;
(b) his/her readiness and willingness to perform
his/her part of the contract; and
(c) the breach of the contract by the defendant;
d). The execution of agreement to sell Ex. PW1/1 has been proved. Now, it
is to be seen whether plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of contract or not.
e). Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 mandates 'readiness' and CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 16/22 'willingness' on the part of plaintiff as a condition precedent to seek specific performance. Section 16 (c) is reproduced as under: "Section 16. Personal bars to relief. Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person XXX XXX
(c) who failed to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.
Explanation. for the purposes of clause (c), (1) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court;
(ii) the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction."
f). The "readiness" and "willingness" are two separate issues. The readiness depends on the availability of requisite funds whereas the willingness depends on the intention of the purchaser. The "readiness" has to be proved by the purchaser by leading evidence relating to the availability of CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 17/22 the funds whereas the intention has to be inferred from the various circumstances on record.
g) The agreement to sell Ex. PW1/1 has a clause which is read as under: "And whereas the first party has agreed to sell the above said property for a sum of Rs.37,00,000/ (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs only) upto the second party and sum of Rs.3,00,000/ (Rupees Three Lacs Only), is now received amount by the first party and balance of Rs.34,00,000/ (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs only). Shall be paid by the second party to th first party within the period uptill 23/05/2012 at the time of delivering the vacant possession execution of other documents such as sale deed, agreement to sell, GPA etc. whatsoever in favour of the second party or his/her/their nominee (S) in full and final settlement. Other terms and conditions of this agreement deed settled are as under:"
It is clear from Ex. PW1/1 that the balance amount of Rs.34 lacs was to be paid to the defendant upto 23/05/2012 at the time of delivery of vacant possession or execution of documents qua title.
h) It is admitted that plaintiff sent a notice Ex. PW1/2 to the defendant stating therein as under: "That my clientess is ready with the balance amount of Rs.34,00,000/ (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs only) and she will make the payment before the SubRegistrar Shastri Nagar, Delhi, at the time of execution and registration of the Sale Deed on the aforesaid property in terms of above agreement.
My clientess will be present in the office of SubRegistrar on 09.05.2012 at 10.00 A. M. sharp."
CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 18/22
i) PW1 deposed that she went to subregistrar office on 09/05/2012 and he got marked her appearance vide receipt Ex.PW1/7 but defendant has not reached there. DW1 admitted that she had not gone to Subregistrar office on 09/05/2012. Further PW1 deposed that she again sent notice Ex. PW1/8 to the defendant showing her readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract and requested her to reach the office of sub registrar on 15/05/2012 but defendant again did not reach there so she got marked her appearance vide receipt Ex. PW1/11. The aforesaid testimony of PW1 has not been challenged by defendant during her cross examination.
j) The notice Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/8 and receipt Ex. PW1/7 and Ex. PW1/11 suggest that plaintiff was willing and ready to perform her part of contract and she continuously requested the defendant to reach Subregistrar office to perform her part of contract but she did not reach there and hence it is clear that plaintiff was willing to perform her part of contract. CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 19/22
k) Ld. Counsel for plaintiff contended that plaintiff in her notice Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/8 specifically stated that she is ready with the balance amount of Rs. 34 lacs which she will pay the same before sub registrar office. On the contrary Ld. Counsel for defendant contended that plaintiff is housewife and she has no source of income and further she is not the income tax assessee hence she had no amount to perform her part of contract.
l) PW1 deposed during her cross examination that the amount of earnest money of Rs. Three lacs was given to defendant by her husband. She also deposed that the amount of Rs. 34 lacs were lying at her house. Plaintiff in both of her notice Ex. PW1/2 and 8 specifically stated that she is ready with the balance amount of Rs.34 lacs but she will make the payment before the sub registrar office. Plaintiff reached to the office of Sub Registrar on 09/05/2014, 15/05/2014 but defendant did not reach there.
m) It is pertinent that a husband can purchase a property in the name of his wife as no such transaction is barred under the Benami Transaction Act. Admittedly, defendant has not put any suggestion to PW1 that her husband has also no amount to pay the balance consideration amount of Rs.34 lacs to her. It is pertinent that Hon'ble High Court passed exparte adinterim injunction in CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 20/22 the instant case vide order dated 25/07/2012 (as then the case was in Hon'ble High Court). The relevant part of order of Hon'ble High Court read as under: . "in view of aforesaid discussion, it is directed that subject to the plaintiff depositing fifty percent of the balance sale consideration with the registrar general within two weeks, the respondent, her agents, representatives, assigns, etc. shall not sell, transfer, alienate, part with possession or create any third party interest in the suit property till further order."
n) In compliance of aforesaid order, plaintiff placed pay order no. 034961 dated 04/08/2012 for an amount of Rs.17 lacs (50% of Rs.34 lacs) on record which is still lying on record. It is pertinent that it is not the case of defendant that plaintiff was/is not ready to perform her part of contract.
o) In view of above discussion, it is clear that plaintiff had/has requisite funds which shows her readiness to perform her part of contract.
p) In view of above discussion, I am of the considered view that plaintiff was/is ready and willing to perform her part of contract. Hence plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement to sell Ex. PW1/1. Accordingly, the aforesaid issue is decided in favour of plaintiff. Relief CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 21/22
a). In view of aforesaid findings, plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed in the suit. Suit is accordingly decreed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant and thereby defendant is directed to perform her part of contract in term of agreement to sell dated 23/12/2011 Ex. PW1/1 in respect of suit property i.e. property bearing no. G570, Gali no.1, Aram Park, Shastri Nagar, Delhi110031 measuring 30 sq. yards alongwith whole of its super structure in favour of the plaintiff and thereafter hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Further defendant is also restrained from creating third party interest in the suit property.
b). Plaintiff is directed to pay the remaining consideration of amount of Rs.17 lacs to the defendant who will also got release the amount of Rs.17 lacs deposited by the plaintiff vide pay order no. 034961 dated 04/08/2012 alongwith interest from the court.
c). Cost of suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff.
11. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
RAVINDER Digitally signed by RAVINDER SINGH
Location: Delhi
SINGH Date: 2017.09.01 16:35:09 +0530
Announced in the (RAVINDER SINGH)
open court Additional District Judge:
on 28/08/2017 Shahdara District:
Karkardooma, Delhi.
CS no.1473/2016 Smt. Shahjahan V/s. Smt. Mahsar Jahan Page no. 22/22