Delhi District Court
Sh. Ravi Kumar vs Sh. Shiv Sharan Lal on 28 February, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL
ADJ03 (NorthWest) Rohini Courts DELHI
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar
S/o Sh. S.Kumar ,
R/o A1/137, Sector 11,
Rohini, Delhi110085 .....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Shiv Sharan Lal
S/o Late Sh. Havdu,
R/o B266, Saraswati Vihar,
Delhi110034
2. Sh. Raghuvir Singh @ R.S.Shastri
S/o Late Sh. Havdu,
R/o B266, Saraswati Vihar,
Delhi110034 ...Defendants
Date of Institution of the Suit : 31.03.2009
Date on which order was reserved : 14.02.2014
Date of decision : 28.02.2014
J U D G M E NT
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the suit for specific
performance, perpetual and mandatory injunction filed by the
plaintiff.
2. Brief facts are it is stated that in the first week of November,
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 1/22
2
2007 the defendant no. 2 introduced himself as Shiv Sharan Lal
S/o Sh. Havdu Singh and represented him as the owner in
possession of the plot bearing no. 265, Block and Pocket C2,
Sector 32, are measuring 32 Sq. mtrs. Situated in Rohini
Residential Scheme, Delhi(hereinafter referred to as suit
property) and offered the said plot to the plaintiff for a total sale
consideration of Rs. 13,17,000/
3. It is stated that on the above assurance, the plaintiff paid Rs.
1,50,000/ as advance/Bayana money to the said defendant no.
2 who represented himself as defendant no. 1 i.e Sh. Shiv Sharan
Lal on 13.11.2007 and thereafter defendant no. 2 issued advance
receipt to the plaintiff duly signed by the defendant no. 2 on
behalf of himself and his wife in the presence of plaintiff and
two other witnesses. It is further stated that at the time of
signing the said advance receipt, the defendant no. 2 also
supplied the photocopies of DDA allotment documents such as
allotment letter, payment receipts and possession letter etc., to
the plaintiff to make sure that the defendant no. 2 was a genuine
allottee of the suit property. It is stated that thereafter plaintiff
requested defendant no. 2 several times to comply with the
terms and conditions of agreement in question, but the
defendant no. 2 avoided to comply the same and also side
tracked the issue on false pretext and the plaintiff feeling some
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 2/22
3
foul play from the side of the defendant no. 2 enquired the
matter and came to know that the defendant no. 2 infact was
not Shiv Narain Lal, whereas defendant no. 2 was actually
known as R.S.Shastri @ Raghuvir Singh. On enquiry with regard
to the identity of the defendant no. 2, the defendant no. 2 did
not give any satisfactory reply. Having no other option, the
plaintiff filed a criminal complaint dated 10.03.2008 with the PS
Saraswati Vihar, Delhi. Thereafter on refusal by the police to
take any action an appropriate complaint U/s 156(3) Cr.PC had
been filed by the plaintiff.
4. It is further stated that in the meanwhile, IO filed status report
stating that defendant no. 1 was not residing at the address
given in the suit and he was residing in the village and was the
real brother of defendant no. 2. In the meanwhile, defendant
no. 2 filed a suit for permanent injunction and declaration
bearing suit no. 465/2008, which is pending in the court of Ld.
Civil Judge, THC. In the said suit defendant no. 1 has admitted
the execution of Bayana receipt dated 13.11.2007, receipt of
advance of Rs. 1,50,000/ and also admitted the signatures on
the said receipt in order to save defendant no. 2.
5. It is stated that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform
his part of agreement in question and defendant had turned
dishonest on account of rise in the price of the plots in the
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 3/22
4
market and was negotiating the same with other persons.
6. Plaintiff has prayed that a decree of specific performance be
passed in his favour directing the defendants to complete the
necessary formalities upto lease deed and to perform their part
of the agreement by executing the sale deed/documents in
favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and on
refusal/failure on the part of the defendants to do so, the court
may direct the completion of sale deed on his behalf in favour of
plaintiff alongwith relief of permanent injunction restraining
the defendants from selling, alienating or parting with the
possession of the suit property to any third person alongwith
further relief directing the defendants to get lease deed executed
in respect of the suit property.
7. Common written statement has been filed on behalf of both the
defendants in which it is stated that the suit has not been
properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction
and the suit is not maintainable against defendant no. 2, against
whom no cause of action had been disclosed.
8. On merits, it is stated that infact true facts are that the
transaction regarding the sale and purchase of the suit property
was done between the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 and his wife
and defendant no. 2 has nothing to do with the same and the
plaintiff was trying to mislead the court. It is further stated that
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 4/22
5
on 13.11.2007 defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff decided to deal
with the suit property, the plaintiff at the same time paid Rs.
1,50,000/ in cash as a token amount/earnest money to the
defendant no. 1 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 13,17,000/
only. The advance receipt for receiving the said amount was
issued by defendant no. 1 only on 13.11.2007 in the presence of
two witnesses. At the time of receipt of the said payment of
earnest money by the defendant no. 1, the defendant no. 1 gave
the opportunity to the plaintiff to inspect the suit property
which was also done by the plaintiff and it was agreed between
the parties that the vacant possession of the Suit property shall
be handed over to the plaintiff as it is, on or before 28.01.2008
after receiving the balance amount.
9. It is further stated that at the time of drafting the said receipt it
was mutually agreed between the parties that the said receipt
advance shall only be considered as Bayana agreement and
accordingly 28.01.2008 shall be considered as the last date for
the performance of the respective duties of each of the party i.e
payment of balance amount by the plaintiff to the defendant
and after receiving the payment, the execution of the transfer
documents by the defendant no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff.
10.It is further stated that till 28.01.2008 which was the last date as
per the receipt, the plaintiff did not take any interest in the
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 5/22
6
performance of his duties as per the said agreement and
accordingly an advance of Rs. 1,50,000/ was forfeited by
defendant no. 1. In the month of February 2008, the plaintiff
approached defendant no. 1 to execute the documents of
transfer of suit property in pursuance of the aforesaid
agreement and told the defendant no.1 to revive the said
agreement or face dire consequences. It is absolutely denied the
said receipt dated 13.11.2007 was executed by defendant no. 2
impersonating himself as defendant no.1 It is stated that
plaintiff has filed a complaint before the police and the court.
However it is not denied that defendant no. 2 is the real brother
of defendant no 1. Therefore it is stated that suit of the plaintiff
is without any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed.
11.Replication has been filed by the plaintiff to the aforesaid
written statement of defendants, in which the allegations made
in the written statement have been denied and those made in
the plaint have been reaffirmed as correct.
12.Vide order dated 27.02.07, from pleadings of the parties
following issues were framed:
Issues
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree
of specific performance in lieu of the
bayana receipt dated 13.1107 ?(OPP)
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 6/22
7
2. Whether the suit is maintainable in
the present form ? OPP
3. Whether parties have performed their
respective parts as per agreement to
sell ? OPD
4. Relief, if any
13.Plaintiff in support of his case has examined himself as PW1.
He has also examined one attesting witness to the receipt dated
13.11.2007 namely Sh. Sri Kishan as PW2. Surprisingly, plaintiff
has examined one more witness Smt Sharda, wife of defendant
no.2 as PW3 , PW4 is Sh. Sh. Satpal Dahiya from the Income Tax
Department. In rebuttal defendant no.2 has appeared as DW1
and defendant no. 1 has appeared as DW2.
14.I have heard Ld. counsel for the plaintiff Sh. S.R.Goel and Ld.
counsel for the defendant Sh. G.S.Hans and perused the record.
15.My issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1 to 3
16. All these issues are taken up together, as they are
interconnected with each other.
17. Agreement to sell dated 13.11.2007 is the most vital document
which contains the bargain of the parties. Same is reproduced
as under:
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 7/22
8
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 8/22
9
18.The said agreement to sell is admitted document of both the
parties. However, it is the matter in controversy, whether the said
document was executed by defendant no.1 or defendant no. 2, as
it is the contention of the plaintiff that defendant no. 2
impersonated himself as defendant no. 1, who is his real brother
and executed the said documents on his behalf without disclosing
the said fact to the plaintiff. Defendant no. 1 in his written
statement has stated that he had executed the said document Ex
PW1/1 which is also his stand in his evidence recorded as PW2.
This question is immaterial in the present case as to who has
actually executed the said document ExPW1/1, as defendant no.
1 admits that he had executed the same, even if it was falsely
executed by defendant no. 2 impersonating himself on behalf of
defendant no.1 even in that case since defendant no. 1 had ratified
the same, the controversy whether defendant no. 2 is thus liable
for criminal liability or not is beyond the scope of the present
proceedings. That is to say that the identity of the person who
actually executed agreement to sell ExPW1/1 is not material to
the fact in issue of the present case in view of the ratification of the
same by defendant no. 1.
19.In the present case, it is also admitted by defendant no. 1 that he
had received the consideration amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs. It is the
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 9/22
10
contention of the plaintiff that despite various requests and
reminders defendant no.1 did not do anything in furtherance of
the terms of agreement to sell. In the meanwhile, he came to know
that defendant no. 2 impersonated himself on behalf of defendant
no.1 and therefore he had lodged a complaint with the police on
10.03.08 which is ExPW1/2 and the failure on the part of police to
take any action, he filed a criminal complaint which is ExPW1/3.
It is the contention of defendant no. 1 that it was the plaintiff who
did not pay the remaining consideration amount before the date
stipulated in the agreement i.e 28.01.08 and therefore his advance
was forfeited. Defendant no. 1 barring his bald statement has not
produced any document on record wherein he had notified to the
plaintiff that he had not taken any effective steps for compliance
of the terms of ExPW1/1 within the time stipulated, therefore his
earnest money is liable to be forfeited, nor any such notice shortly
after the said date i.e 28.01.2008 was given to the plaintiff that he
had not complied with the terms of agreement to sell ExPW1/1
within the stipulated period, therefore his earnest money had
been forfeited.
20.On the other hand, plaintiff stated that he was always ready and
willing to perform his part of contract. The word "readiness"
denotes financial capacity to perform the agreement, whereas
"willingness" denotes the intention to perform the contract at all
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 10/22
11
material times. The plaintiff in this case has shown that he had the
intention or willingness to go ahead with the agreement Ex
PW1/1, as he had even filed criminal complaint ExPW1/2 dated
10.03.2008 and it is the contention of the plaintiff that he had also
purchased non judicial stamp papers for executing the sale deed,
in this regard he has proved the relevant treasury challans which
are collectively ExPW1/5 for the purchase of stamp papers and he
had even purchased the stamp papers for the value of Rs.
1,00,200/. Though the stamp papers were purchased by one
Amrender Kumar, S/o Late Sh. R.P.Singh who had purchased the
same on 28.01.2008. PW1 in his cross examination has stated that
the said stamp papers were purchased by his nominee.
21.Though he has not produced any document regarding the
appointment of nominee by him. However, it is common
knowledge that a person who buys the property is not bound to
purchase the stamp papers himself and he can send to anyone to
buy the stamp papers on his behalf and the person who actually
applies to the treasury for buying those stamp papers has to fill in
certain challans as per Treasury rules and in the present case the
said challan had been filled up by somebody else on behalf of
plaintiff. Since the said stamp papers photocopy of which has
been placed which are ExPW1/5 have been placed on the record
by the plaintiff and same pertain to the suit property only.
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 11/22
12
Therefore it is hard to imagine in these circumstances that
anybody else would have applied for the stamp papers on the
same date i.e the date stipulated on 28.01.2008 or that if the
plaintiff through his nominee would not have applied for the
same, then he would not have been in possession of such stamp
papers from treasury. Therefore it shows that plaintiff indeed had
applied for the issuance of stamp papers for the execution of the
sale deed which had to be executed with regard to the agreement
to sell in question. As per clause 2 & 3 of the above ExPW1/2, it is
apparent that full and final payment was to be given to defendant
no.1 after execution of lease deed.
22.In the present case it appears that the execution of lease deed was
a prerequisite for paying the final remaining consideration
amount to the defendant no. 1 and since defendant no. 1 had not
taken the requisite steps for execution of the lease deed with
respect to the suit property, the plaintiff did not handover the
remaining sale consideration amount to him. Infact DW2 i.e
defendant no. 1 has stated in his cross examination that he does
not remember the condition of the lease deed, whether the last
and balance payment was to be made only after execution of lease
deed and he did not knew, whether the lease deed was in his
favour and he stated that he does not even remember the terms
and conditions of the agreement in question. In his further cross
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 12/22
13
examination he has stated that it is correct that he got executed
the lease deed in his favour from the office of DDA at his own
expenses and it was also correct that all the formalities and
documents were filed by him to get the lease deed and the said
lease deed was registered on 21.10.2008 in his favour.
23.From the aforesaid cross examination of DW2 i.e defendant no. 1
it is apparent that he was not even aware, what were the terms of
agreement to sell ExPW1/1 with regard to the lease deed, whether
it was a sine qua non for the completion of terms of agreement to
sell or not and infact he later on at his own expenses got the lease
deed executed in his favour from the office of DDA, but same was
done much later on i.e on 21.10.2008. He even does not know that
the remaining consideration amount had to be paid to him after
the execution of lease deed. If the lease deed was not necessary for
perfecting the title of defendant no.1 then why he got it executed
later on from the office of DDA at his own cost and expenses.
Therefore it appears that parties had consented that the final
payment was to be made to defendant no. 1 only after execution
of lease deed in his favour which was to be done on or before
28.01.2008 as per ExPW1/1.
24.Though the plaintiff has also not placed on record any document
to show his financial solvency i.e whether he had the financial
means to go ahead with the transaction in question i.e whether he
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 13/22
14
had remaining consideration amount ready and available with
him, at all material times. Since he has not produced any bank
account or any other document from which it could be gathered
that he had the necessary means to go ahead with the transaction
in question. However, at the same time defendant no.1 has also
failed to perform his part of the contract as lease deed in question
in his favour was executed only on 21.10.2008 at his own cost and
expenses. No plausible explanation has been furnished by
defendant no.1 if the lease deed was executed on 21.10.2008 at his
own cost and expenses then why it was not done on or before
28.01.2008 as stipulated in ExPW1/1. The plaintiff was under an
obligation to pay the remaining consideration amount only after
execution of lease deed which was to be done on or before
28.01.2008 as per ExPW1/1, therefore it cannot be said that the
plaintiff is in breach of the terms of agreement to sell ExPW1/1
rather it appears that it is only the defendant no. 1 who was in
breach of the terms of the agreement to sell ExPW1/1.
25.Now the question which arises for consideration is whether
whether specific performance of the contract dated 13.11.2007
should be granted to the plaintiff or not in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. It is settled law that by virtue of
Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the relief for specific
performance lies in the discretion of the court and the court is not
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 14/22
15
bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. The
exercise of the discretion to order specific relief would require the
court to satisfy itself that the circumstances are such that it is
equitable to grant decree for specific performance of the contract.
Law in this regard has been laid down in the following
judgments :
"In K. Narender V. Riviera Apartments (P)
Ltd., (1995) 5 SCC 77, the court observed
thus :
Section 20 of the Specific Reilef Act, 1963,
provides that the jurisdiction to decree
specific performance is discretionary and
the court is not bound to grant such relief
merely because it is lawful to do so; the
discretion of the court is not arbitrary but
sound and reasonable, guided by judicial
principles and capable of correction by a
court of appeal. Performance of the
contract involving some hardship on the
defendant which he did not foresee while
nonperformance involving no such
hardship on the plaintiff, is one of the
circumstances in which the court may
properly exercise discretion not to decree
specific performance. The doctrine of
comparative hardship has been thus
statutorily recognized in India. However,
mere inadequacy of consideration or the
mere fact that the contract is onerous to the
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 15/22
16
defendant or improvident in its nature,
shall not constitute an unfair advantage to
the plaintiff over the defendant or
unforeseeable hardship on the defendant.
In A. C. Arulappan V. Ahalya Naik, (2001) 6
SCC 600, the court observed thus :
The jurisdiction to decree specific relied is
discretionary and the court can consider
various circumstances to decide whether
such relied is to be granted. Merely because
it is lawful to grant specific relief, the court
need not grant the order for specific relief;
but this discretion shall not be exercised in
an arbitrary or unreasonable manner.
Certain circumstances have been
mentioned in section 20 (2) of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963, as to under what
circumstances the court shall exercise such
discretion. If under the terms of the
contract the plaintiff gets an unfair
advantage over the defendant, the court
may not exercise its discretion in favour of
the plaintiff. So also, specific relief may not
be granted if the defendant would be put to
undue hardship which he did not foresee at
the time of agreement. If it is inequitable to
grant specific relief, then also the court
would desist from granting a decree to the
plaintiff.
In Bal Krishna V. Bhagwan Das (2008) 12
SCC 145, the court opined thus :
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 16/22
17
It is also settled by various decisions of this
court that by virtue of section 20 of the Act,
the relief for specific performance lies in the
discretion of the court and the court is not
bound to grant such relief merely because it
is lawful to do so. The exercise of the
discretion to order specific performance
would require the court to satisfy itself that
the circumstances are such that it is
equitable to grant decree for specific
performance of the contract. While
exercising the discretion, the court would
take in to consideration the circumstances
of the case, the conduct of parties, and their
respective interests under the contract. No
specific performance of a contract, though
it is not vitiated by fraud or
misrepresentation, can be granted, if it
would give an unfair advantage to the
plaintiff and where the performance of the
contract would involve some hardship on
the defendant, which he did not foresee. In
other words, the court's discretion to grant
specific performance is not exercised if the
contract is not equal and fair, although the
contract is not void."
26.It was further held in judgment JT 2011 (8) SC 129 (supra) in
which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied upon its earlier
judgment rendered in case titled as "K. S. Vidyanandan & ors. Vs.
Vairavan JT 1992 (2) SC 375" and the Hon'ble Apex Court
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 17/22
18
reiterated the ratio of the said judgment in para no. 28 as under :
"28. Till the issue is considered in an
appropriate case, we can only reiterate
what has been suggested in K. S.
Vidyanadam (Supra) :
(i). Courts, while exercising discretion in
suits for specific performance should
bear in mind that when the parties
prescribed a time / period for taking
certain steps or for completion of the
transaction, that must have some
significance and therefore time / period
prescribed cannot be ignored.
(ii). Courts will apply greater scrutiny
and strictness when considering whether
the purchaser was ready and willing to
perform his part of the contract.
(iii). Every suit for specific performance
need not be decreed merely because it is
filed within the period of limitation by
ignoring the time limits stipulated in the
agreement. Courts will also frown upon
suits which are not filed immediately
after the breach / refusal. The fact that
limitation is three years does not mean a
purchaser can wait for 1 or 2 years to file
a suit and obtain specific performance.
The three year period is intended to
assist purchasers in special cases, as for
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 18/22
19
example where the major part of the
consideration has been paid to the
vendor and possession has been
delivered in part performance, where
equity shifts in favour of the purchaser."
27.Further in a judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
in case titled as "Laxmi Devi Vs. Mahavir Singh, RFA No.
554/2011 on 01.05.2012" the relevant para(s) no. 11, 12 and 13 of
which are reproduced as under :
"11.... There are two reasons for declining
the discretionary relief of specific
performance. The first reason is that the
Supreme court has now on repeated
occasions held that unless substantial
consideration is paid out of the total
amount of consideration, the courts would
lean against granting the specific
performance in as much as by the loss of
time, the balance sale consideration which
is granted at a much later date, is not
sufficient to enable the proposed seller to
buy an equivalent property which could
have been bought from the balance sale
consideration if the same was paid on the
due date. In the present case, out of the
total sale consideration of Rs. 5, 60,000/,
only a sum of Rs. 1 lakh has been paid i.e.
The sale consideration which is paid only
around 17% or so. In my opinion, by mere
Suit No. 184/14
Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 19/22
20
payment of 17% of the sale consideration, it
cannot be said that the respondent /
plaintiff has made out a case for grant of discretionary relief of specific performance.
12. The Supreme court in the judgment reported as K. S. Vidyanadam Vs. Vairavan 1997 (3) SCC 1 has held that in urban areas these days property prices remaining stable for a long period of time is very much a thing of past. In urban areas, more so in the metropolitan cities and further more so in the capital of the country i.e. Delhi, prices of immovable properties rise in a sharp manner and that too regularly. The Supreme Court in the judgment K. S. Vidyanadam (Supra) has observed that delays caused in specific performance is a good ground for declining the specific performance with respect to urban immovable properties. The ratio of the supreme court in the case of K. S. Vidyanadam (supra) has been recently reiterated by the supreme court in the judgment reported as Saradamani Kandappan V. S. Rajalakshmi (2011) 12 SCC 18.
13. In my opinion, the following conclusions can therefore be arrived at : ....... ...... .....
(iii). The respondent / plaintiff is disentitled to discretionary relief of specific performance having paid only 17% of the Suit No. 184/14 Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 20/22 21 sale consideration.
(iv). Discretion is also exercised against grant of specific performance in as much as today in the year 2012, or in April 2011, when the impugned judgment and decree was passed, the appellant / defendant would not be able to busy an equivalent property for the price prevailing as on the date of the agreement to sell i.e. 20.09.2007 considering that only 17% of the price had been paid initially."
28.In the present case, the plaintiff had admittedly only paid an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ as earnest money at the time of entering into agreement to sell and purchase dated 13.11.2007 out of total consideration amount of Rs. 13,17,000/, which comes to less than 15% of the total consideration amount. Therefore almost more than 85% of the total consideration amount was not paid. Therefore it can be said that at the time of execution of agreement to sell dated 13.11.2007, only a small amount out of the total consideration was paid and substantial amount i.e. more than 85% is still to be paid.
29.Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that there has been astronomical increase in the land prices in Delhi in the last few decades. If specific performance is ordered now in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1, then the defendant no. 1 cannot buy equivalent property anywhere in Delhi with the Suit No. 184/14 Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 21/22 22 balance consideration amount of Rs. 11,67,000/, which he would have been able to do, in the year 2007. Even otherwise, it is settled law that comparative hardship of the parties has also to be seen, while directing the specific performance of the contract and the court may not grant specific relief of the contract, if the plaintiffs get an unfair advantage over the defendant or if the defendant would be put to undue hardship.
30.In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be highly unequitable to order specific performance of contract dated 31.08.2004 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1. However on the grounds of equity and in the interest of justice, as per section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, the plaintiff is only entitled to reasonable damages for any loss or damage caused to him due to breach of the contract, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach. In the interest of justice, in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the plaintiff will only be entitled to return of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ paid as advance / earnest money from defendant no.1 along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of agreement i.e. 13.11.2007 till the date of its realization along with costs of the suit. Since there is no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant no. 2. Therefore there is no cause of action for filing the present suit against defendant Suit No. 184/14 Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 22/22 23 no. 2. Issues no. 1, 2 & 3 are answered accordingly. (RELIEF)
31. In view of my findings on above issues discussed above, the plaintiff is held not entitled to the specific performance of the contract dated 13.11.2007 and he is only held entitled to return of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ paid as earnest money from the defendant no. 1 only along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of agreement i.e. 13.11.2007 till its realization along with costs. Plaintiff is also held not entitled to the relief of perpetual and mandatory injunction.
32.Decree sheet be drawn.
33.File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (Sanjeev Aggarwal) COURT ON 28.02.2014 ADJ(N/W) Rohini Courts Delhi/28.02.2014 Suit No. 184/14 Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors. 23/22