Delhi District Court
Sh. Omveer Singh vs Sh. Rakesh Kumar on 25 November, 2014
Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
IN THE COURT OF SH. G. N. PANDEY
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02 (NE)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 365/14
Case I.D. Number : 02402C0270662009
IN THE MATTER OF :
Sh. Omveer Singh
S/o Sh. Khajan Singh
R/o B/58, Gali No. 6,
Bhajanpura, Delhi110053. ........ Plaintiff
VERSUS
Sh. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Veer Singh,
R/o B/264/1, Gali No. 12,
Bhajanpura, Delhi110053 ......... Defendant
Date of Institution of the suit: 11.09.2009
Received in this Court :18.03.2014
Arguments heard on : 21.11.2014
Date of Judgment : 25.11.2014
Decision : Suit dismissed with cost
J U D G M E N T
1. The plaintiff instituted this suit for specific performance and
permanent injunction against the defendant for execution of sale deed with
CS No. 365/14 1 of 20
Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar
Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
respect to the property No. B/264/1, Gali No. 12, Bhajanpura, Delhi53
measuring 46 sq. yards in Khasra No. 370 comprising two room sets on
the ground floor and first floor ( hereinafter called the suit property) and for
restraining the defendant, associates, nominees, assignee etc. from
selling, alienating, transferring or creating any third party interest in the suit
property on the basis of agreement to sell entered into between the parties
dated 02.08.07.
2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint is that an
agreement to sell dated 02.08.07 was entered into between the parties
regarding the suit property in writing on Rs. 50 Stamp Paper and
notarized. The total sale consideration was Rs. 70,40,000/ and Rs. 1.5
lakh was paid as earnest money. The date for execution for sale deed was
fixed as 02.11.07. The plaintiff visited to the office of SubregistrarIV for
registration of sale deed on 02.11.2007 but the defendant did not appear.
The plaintiff requested defendant to execute the sale deed but of no avail.
Legal Notice dated 17.12.2007 was also issued to the plaintiff which was
replied by the defendant vide reply dated 24.12.2007. The plaintiff again
issued Legal Notice dated 30.07.09 to the defendant but the sale deed was
not executed. As the defendant tried to sell the suit property to some other
person and failed to execute the sale deed, this suit is filed by the plaintiff
against the defendant.
3. The defendant has contested the present suit by filing the written
CS No. 365/14 2 of 20
Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar
Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
statement wherein taken preliminary objections such as this suit is not
maintainable, plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit, there is no cause
of action for filing of this suit, the plaintiff has not come to the court with
clean hands and suppressed the material facts, this suit is barred under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. As further contended this suit is filed on the basis
of false and fabricated documents, the suit is devoid of any cause of action
and the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and
jurisdiction. As contended the plaintiff did not pay the sale consideration
within time as per the agreement and violated the terms and conditions,
the earnest money was forfeited and the plaintiff has no right to file this
suit. It is mentioned that the defendant was ready and willing to perform
his part of the agreement and the plaintiff is not entitled for the
discretionary relief. The defendant has denied that the plaintiff had
reached the office of SubRegistrar, Delhi along with material contentions
in the plaint and his readiness and willingness to perform his part of
contract. It has been further stated that the defendant has never violated
the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell and it is the plaintiff who
has failed to honor his commitment. Accordingly, the defendant prayed that
the present suit be dismissed with costs.
4. Replication has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff wherein the
contents of the plaint have been reiterated and the assertions of the
defendant to the contrary have been controverted.
CS No. 365/14 3 of 20
Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar
Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues
have been framed vide order dated 10.12.2010:
(i) Whether the plaintiff was not ready to perform his part of contract
and therefore, his earnest money was liable to be forfeited ? OPD
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the
contract as prayed in the plaint ? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent
injunction as prayed in the plaint ? OPP
(iv)Relief.
(v) costs.
The case was thereafter fixed for plaintiff's evidence.
6. In support of his case the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 by way
of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. By way of his affidavit of evidence, the plaintiff has
reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint. The witness has also relied
upon the relevant documents i.e. AgreementcumBayana Receipt
between the parties dated 08.02.2007 Ex. PW1/1, Receipt No. 54 of
Registration Form No. 3 dated 02. 11.2007 to show the visit of the
deponent in the Office of SubRegistrar Ex. PW1/2, Reply send by the
defendant dated 24.12.2007 to the legal notice of the plaintiff Ex. PW1/3,
Legal Notice dated 30.07.09 issued by the plaintiff Ex. PW1/4 and the
Postal Receipts Ex. PW1/5 ( Colly).
The plaintiff has also examined another witness Mr. Avtar Singh,
CS No. 365/14 4 of 20
Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar
Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
OfficeIV, Seelampur as PW2 who appeared and deposed that the
summoned record has been eaten by Deemak and identified Ex. PW1/2
being issued from the Office of SubRegistrarIV. As no other witness
remained to be examined on behalf of plaintiff, PE was closed and case
was fixed for DE.
7. The defendant failed to lead any evidence despite opportunity and
accordingly the DE was closed. It is noted that none appeared for the
defendant to address the final arguments.
8. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant failed to
comply the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated 02.08.07
and did not appear before the office of subregistrar to execute the sale
deed. As further argued the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform on his
part of contract. As further argued the plaintiff has proved his case and
discharge the onus. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff accordingly prayed to pass
decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Ld. Counsel for
the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment titled as Ishwar Dayal Kansal &
Anr. Vs. RKBK Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2013 (1) RLR 44 in
support of contentions.
9. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and considered the
submissions along with record. I have also considered the relevant
provisions of law. My finding on the above said issues are as under:
CS No. 365/14 5 of 20
Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar
Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Issue No. i, ii & iii
(i) Whether the plaintiff was not ready to perform his part of
contract and therefore, his earnest money was liable to be forfeited ?
OPD
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of
the contract as prayed in the plaint ? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent
injunction as prayed in the plaint ? OPP
10. The brief and relevant facts for filing of the suit is mentioned at the
outset. The onus to prove the issue No. I was upon the defendant though
the onus to prove the issue No. II and III regarding entitlement for the relief
as prayed in the suit was upon the plaintiff. All these issues are examined
and adjudicated together being inter related.
11. It is well settled that a suit has to be tried on the basis of the
pleadings of the contesting parties which is filed in the suit in the form of
plaint and written statement and the nucleus of the case of the plaintiff and
the contesting case of the defendant in the form of issues emerges out of
that. Being a civil suit, this suit is to be decided on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities.
In the case of Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla, reported in
183 (2011) DLT 418, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to
observe as under:
CS No. 365/14 6 of 20
Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar
Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
"A civil case is decided on balance of
probabilities. The balance of probabilities in the
present case shows that the Power of Attorney Ex.
PW3/1 and the Will Ex. P1 were duly executed by the
deceased Sh. Sohan Singh. The Power of Attorney is
after all a registered Power of Attorney, and more
importantly, the original title documents of the subject
property are in the possession of the respondent No. 1
and which would not have been, if there was not to be any transfer of title in the suit property. Merely because two views are possible, this court would not interfere with one possible and plausible view which is taken by the court below, unless such view causes grave injustice. In my opinion, in fact, grave injustice will be caused not to the objectors/appellants but to the respondent No. 1 her fatherinlaw Sh. Sewa Singh, if the impugned judgment is set aside."
In the case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 729, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:
'' 8. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that a creditor can maintain a civil and criminal proceedings at the CS No. 365/14 7 of 20 Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. same time. Both the proceedings, thus, can run parallel. The fact required to be proved for obtaining a decree in the civil suit and a judgment of conviction in the criminal proceedings may be overlapping but the standard of proof in a criminal case visavis a civil suit, indisputably is different. Whereas in a criminal case the prosecution is bound to prove the commission of the offence on the part of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, in a civil suit " preponderance of probability" would serve the purpose for obtaining a decree".
In the cases of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 729 and Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla, reported in 183 (2011) DLT 418, it has been held that a civil case is to be decided on balance of probabilities
12. Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines " burden of proof"
which is reproduced as below: " 101. Burden of proof whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the CS No. 365/14 8 of 20 Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."
Section 101 of the Evidence Act has clearly laid down that the burden of proving a fact always lying upon the person who asserts the facts. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been liable to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of other party.
13. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that 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 specific performance is an equitable relief and Section 20 of the Act preserves judicial discretion. The relief U/S 20 is not automatic as the Court is required to see the totality of the circumstances which are to be assessed by the Court in the light of facts and circumstances of each case. The party who seek specific performance being an equitable relief must come to the court with clean hands and while exercising the discretion, the court would take into consideration the circumstances of the case, the conduct of parties and the motive behind the litigation.
14. In a suit for Specific Performance, the plaintiff has to prove a valid sale agreement; the breach of the contract by the defendant and readiness CS No. 365/14 9 of 20 Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. The relevant provision of law i.e. Section 16 (c ) of the Specific Relief Acts mandates readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff as a condition precedent to seek specific performance. Section 16 (c ) is reproduced hereunder: " Section 16. Personal bars to relief Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person XXX XXX XXX ( C) who fails to aver and prove that he has perfomed 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 ), 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; the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction."
CS No. 365/14 10 of 20 Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
15. As held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in RFA No. 83/2007, the readiness and willingness are two separate issues. The former depends upon the availability of the requisite funds whereas the later depends on the intention of the purchaser. The readiness has to be proved by the purchaser by leading evidence relating to the availability of the funds whereas the intention has to be inferred from the various circumstances on record. If there is not availability of the funds with the purchaser, he can be none suited on the ground of non readiness alone. If the plaintiff is able to show and prove the availability of balance sale consideration with him at the time fixed for performance in the agreement, it is an indication of his readiness but his willingness/intention to perform cannot be inferred from readiness alone. It is the duty of the Court to find out which party has not performed his part of the contract and the Court has to take into consideration the human probabilities, ordinary course of human conduct and commonsense to draw necessary inference. The Court has to minutely examine the conduct of the parties in order to ascertain the truth.
16. In N. P. Thirugnanam Vs. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, ( 1995) 5 SCC 115, the Supreme Court held that the Court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances to adjudge the " readiness" and "
willingness" of the plaintiff. The amount of balance sale consideration must be proved to be available with the purchaser right from the date of CS No. 365/14 11 of 20 Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. execution till the date of decree. The Court upheld the dismissal of the suit for specific performance on various grounds inter alia that the plaintiff was dabbing in real estate business without means to purchase the suit property and the very contract was speculative in nature.
In R. C. Chandiok V. Chunni Lal Sabharwal, (1970) 3 SCC 140, the Supreme Court held that " readiness" and " willingness" cannot be treated as a straitjacket formula. It has to be determined from the entirety of facts and circumstances relevant to the intention and conduct of the party concerned.
17. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 in support of his case and deposed regarding the execution of the notarized agreement Ex. PW1/1. The witness further deposed that out of the sale consideration of Rs. 17,40,000/, Rs. 1,50,000/ was paid to the defendant as earnest money by cash and the date of registration was fixed for 02.11.2007. As further deposed, the plaintiff went to subregistrar office on 02.11.2007 and proved the receipt Ex. PW1/2 in this respect deposing defendant did not appear for execution of the sale deed. Legal Notice Ex. PW1/4 dated 30.07.2009 was thereafter issued by the plaintiff which was replied by the defendant. During crossexamination the testimony of the PW1 appears to be shattered. This court finds many of the weaknesses in the case of the plaintiff and this court has no hesitation in holding that the plaintiff categorically failed to show the readiness and willingness in performing his CS No. 365/14 12 of 20 Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. part of the agreement. Nothing is either deposed or produced by the plaintiff that he was ready and willing to pay the remaining balance consideration. It is noted that plaintiff has not placed on record any documents to show that he appeared before subregistrar office and he was ready to make the payment of the due amount either by way of cheque or cash. No document produced at all in this respect nor anything is deposed.
18. During crossexamination the testimony of PW1 was shattered. The earnest money was paid in cash as stated but the witness failed to disclose any source of income despite asking during crossexamination. The testimony of plaintiff was further impeached regarding issuance of the legal notice to the defendant. No receipt was admittedly issued or received in respect of the said payment of earnest money. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not purchased the stamp paper nor paid any duty for execution of sale deed. The remaining balance consideration was not paid as proof of willingness to pay the balance amount nor the same was produced in the court when this suit was filed. The plaintiff has not produced any document nor proved their readiness and willingness for passing decree of specific performance as prayed in the suit. As stated the plaintiff has kept Rs. 15,90,000/ in cash with him when he visited to the subregistrar office which itself appears to be unbelievable as such heavy amount was to be paid in cash. It is also interesting that plaintiff appeared with such huge CS No. 365/14 13 of 20 Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. cash alone before the subregistrar office which appears to be not sustainable. Moreover, such transaction appears to be tainted in view of the provisions of Income Tax Act also. No Income Tax Return or any document is filed by the plaintiff also in support of contentions.
19. Admittedly, defendant is in possession of the suit property. Admittedly, the plaintiff never offered defendant to transfer the property to him against the payment of enhance amount as per the increasing higher rate of the property in the market. I have gone through the judgment reported as (2002) 8 SCC 146 titled Nirmala Anand Vs. Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. The ratio of the judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The plaintiff failed to make any such proposal despite inquiry during arguments too in this respect.
20. The agreement to sell Ex. PW1/1 relied by the plaintiff is admittedly unregistered. There is doubt regarding the admissibility of such agreement to sell relied by the plaintiff itself. This court is guided in this respect in view of judgment of Hon'ble High Court in CRP No. 19/2014 decided on 22nd August, 2014 titled as Sh. Ashwani Kumar Vs. Smt. Sukhdevi and Ors.
Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 was amended by Act 48 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001. The amendment was brought about by the Registration and other Related laws ( Amendment) Act, 2001. As as CS No. 365/14 14 of 20 Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. result of the amendment, an agreement to sell cannot be relied upon to claim part performance and entitlement to possession unless the agreement to sell is registered and stamped at 90 % of the value of the sale deed. Admittedly, Earnest money ReceiptcumAgreement is not a registered document. Section 17 (1A) of Indian Registration Act provides that the documents containing contract to transfer for consideration any immovable property for the purposes of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of Registration and other Related laws ( Amendment) Act 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or afte such commencement then they shall have no effect for the purposes of said Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. It is also noted that the payment under the agreement to sell in question is in cash and not by cheque, thus reading to grave doubt even with respect to the existence and validity of agreement itself.
21. As stated the agreement is dated 02.08.2007. This suit was filed by the plaintiff on 14.09.09. Except the legal notice dated 30.07.09, none of the legal notices as contended by the plaintiff are produced or proved on record. Moreover, the testimony of the plaintiff with respect to the legal notices issued by him or in his behalf is already impeached. There is reply of the defendant of one legal notice of the plaintiff which is dated 24.12.2007. In the said reply defendant has denied the claim of the plaintiff CS No. 365/14 15 of 20 Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. but no steps was taken by the plaintiff for period of about two years. It is also relevant to note that in the reply dated 24.12.2007 Ex.PW1/3 itself the defendant has shown his readiness to execute the sale deed and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff upon receipt of the balance sale consideration but no steps was taken by the plaintiff. The same itself cast shadow on the case of the plaintiff.
22. The witness/plaintiff claimed to have paid Rs. 1,50,000/ by way of cash and appeared before subregistrar office with balance sale consideration of Rs. 17, 40,000/ in cash itself is unbelievable and also contrary to the provisions of law. This act and conduct appears to be suspicious and does not inspire confidence. There is no averments in the plaint nor any evidence to infer the capacity of the plaintiff for payment of such huge amount in cash nor there is anything as from where such large amount was arranged by the plaintiff in cash. The plaintiff failed to show the source of arranging such large money in cash. Moreover, even the alleged transaction of Rs.1.5 lakh in cash made by the plaintiff is violative of the provisions of Income Tax Act. Section 269(SS) of the Income Tax Act prohibits any person from taking or accepting from any other person any loan or deposit in any other way than by cheque or bank draft where the amount is more than Rs. 20,000/. Similarly Section269(T) prohibits the repayment of any loan or deposit other than by way of cheque or bank draft, if amount is more than Rs. 20,000/.These provisions have been CS No. 365/14 16 of 20 Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. extended to loans between two individual as well and in such cases, the Income Tax assessing officer can levy penalty as high on the amount itself. The whole idea behind this clause is to counter act tax evasion. In this case, plaintiff failed to show any reason or ground for alleged transaction in violation of provisions of Income Tax Act. The plaintiff has not produced any corroborative evidence to show or prove that such amount was arranged or paid, whether such payment was reflected in the income tax return or any records maintained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to gain from the illegal act violating any law of the land. Further, merely oral averments is not sufficient to prove the case of the plaintiff for entitlement of the amount particularly when the transaction appears to be barred by the provisions of law. There is nothing on record except the bald averments of the plaintiff.
23. Plaintiff has not produced any income tax return to show that any payment was made and same was reflected in the return at the relevant time. Had the amount been actually given by plaintiff to defendant and same would have been shown by plaintiff in his income tax return at the relevant time and said fact would have been proved on record by examining the concerned official from Income tax department.
24. I have gone through the judgment titled as Sanjay Mishra Vs. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki & Anr, 2009(3) Civil Court Cases 563 (Bombay) and ratio of the case squarely applies in the facts of this case. The relevant CS No. 365/14 17 of 20 Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. para No. 13 of the judgment reads as under: 13" In the present case, there is a categorical admission that the amount allegedly advanced by the applicant was entirely a cash amount and that the amount was "unaccounted". He admitted not only that the same was not disclosed in the Income Tax Return at the relevant time but till recording of evidence in the year 2006 it was not disclosed in the Income Tax Return. By no stretch of imagination it can be stated that liability to repay unaccounted cash amount is a legally enforceable liability within the meaning of explanation to section 138 of the said Act. The alleged debt cannot be said to be a legally recoverable debt."
25. I have gone through the judgment reported as (2003) 8 SCC 752. As held: Whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil of testing of " proved", " disproved" and " not proved" as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is one and the same. It is the valuation of the result drawn by the applicability of the rule contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 that makes the difference. In a suit CS No. 365/14 18 of 20 Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. for possession of property based on title, if the plaintiff creates a high degree of probability of his title to ownership, instead of proving his title beyond any reasonable doubts, that would be enough to shift the onus on the defendant. If the defendant fails to shift back the onus, the plaintiffs burden of proof would stand discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff's title ( Para 28,29 and 33).
The present case being a civil one, the plaintiff could not be expected to prove his title beyond any reasonable doubt; a high degree of probability lending assurance of the availability of title with him would be enough to shift the onus the plaintiff's burden of proof can safely be deemed to have been discharged. In the opinion of this court the plaintiff had succeeded in shifting the onus on the defendant and, therefore, the burden of proof which lay on the plaintiff had stood discharged.
The ratio of the judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussions, materials on the record and testimony of the witnesses, it is proved that the plaintiff failed to prove that CS No. 365/14 19 of 20 Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sh. G. N.Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. he was ready to make the payment on the day when the documents were to be executed or on the day when the suit was filed. The payment of the balance sale consideration and execution of title documents was a simultaneous act. The plaintiff was under obligation to pay the balance sale consideration and only then the defendant could have executed the sale deed. This Court does not find any substance in the contention that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The judgment relied by Ld. Counsel for the plaitniff is not applicable and helpful in the facts and circumstances of this case. No merit is thus found in the suit filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is therefore not entitled for the relief as prayed in the suit. Issue No. i, ii and iii are accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
Relief In view of the above said discussions and findings, this court of the considered opinion that plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as prayed in the suit. The suit of the plaintiff is therefore dismissed with cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on this 25th day of November, 2014 G. N. Pandey Addl. District Judge02 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CS No. 365/14 20 of 20
Omveer Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar