Delhi High Court
Sunil Kumar Dhankar vs Virender Singh & Ors on 8 August, 2011
Author: J.R. Midha
Bench: J.R. Midha
6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.374/2010
% Date of decision: 8th August, 2011
SUNIL KUMAR DHANKAR ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Shazad Khan, Adv.
versus
VIRENDER SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. S.P. Sharma, Adv.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be NO
reported in the Digest?
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the judgment of the learned Trial Court whereby the learned Trial Court held that the appellant is not entitled to the decree of specific performance.
2. The appellant's case is that vide Agreement to Sell dated 23rd September, 1992, the appellant agreed to purchase the land admeasuring 12.5 Biswas in Khasra No.272/2 (1-14), Village Said-ul-Ajaib, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi from the respondents for a total sale consideration of `7,22,500/- out of RFA No.374/2010 Page 1 of 3 which the appellant paid a sum of `80,000/- at the time of execution of the sale agreement and the balance sale consideration was payable within three months. The appellant claims to have approached the respondents with the balance sale consideration in November, 1992 but the respondents sought time till December, 1992. The appellant claims to have again approached the respondents in end of December, 1992 and January, 1993 but the respondents did not accept the balance sale consideration. The appellant instituted the suit on 28th February, 1993.
3. The learned Trial Court held that the Agreement to Sell dated 23rd September, 1992 was unenforceable as the suit property was admittedly owned by four persons including the three respondents and their brother, Brahm Singh who neither signed the sale agreement nor received any sale consideration from the appellant. The learned Trial Court held that the Agreement to Sell recorded the payment of earnest money of `80,000/- by the appellant to the respondents whereas in the plaint, the appellant stated to have paid only `65,000/-. However, the appellant could not even prove the payment of `65,000/- to the respondents. The appellant claims to have paid `30,000/- by way of cheque but could not even prove the encashment of the said cheque. The appellant also did not RFA No.374/2010 Page 2 of 3 lead any evidence before the learned Trial Court to prove that he had funds available with him to pay the balance sale consideration. For all the aforesaid reasons, the learned Trial Court held that the appellant was not entitled to the decree of specific performance.
4. There is no infirmity in the findings of the learned Trial Court. This Court concurs with the findings of the learned Trial Court. There is no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. All pending applications are also dismissed.
J.R. MIDHA, J AUGUST 08, 2011 mk RFA No.374/2010 Page 3 of 3