Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Facts in brief are that on 12.12.1979 plaintiff filed the suit claiming decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.3.197, inter alia, alleging that Delhi Development Authority had granted a lease of a big plot of land in favor of New Friends Co-operative House Building Society and the Society had granted sub lease in favor of its members. Durga Nath Sharma, defendant No. 1 being one of the members of the Society was granted a sub lease with respect of plot No. 334 measuring 524 sq. yards under sub lease dated 2.7.1974. The said defendant with a view to sell the said plot entered into an agreement with plaintiff on 24.3.1978 at a fixed price of Rs. 85,000/-. A sum of Rs. 8,500/- was received towards part payment of the price, the balance was payable within 15 days after receipt of approval of building plan by Delhi Development Authority. The said defendant also agreed to execute necessary documents in favor of the plaintiff such as, (a) construction agreement, (b) General and special power of attorney, (c) Will, (d) Agreement to sell and (e) any other necessary document. These documents were to be executed by the defendant in order to avoid possibility of complication in transfer of the plot to the plaintiff, although the intention of defendant No. 1 was to sell the plot to the plaintiff for which necessary deal was struck. The plaintiff further alleged that he got a building plan prepared from an architect, to suit his requirements, which was sent Along with draft of the other documents with a covering letter dated 17.5.1978 to the defendant. More documents were sent with another letter of the same date for signatures of defendant No. 1. Both the letters were sent under registered cover and were duly received by the defendant but no reply was received. On 17.8.1978 another letter under registered cover was sent to the defendant, which though received was not replied to by the defendant. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant appears to have changed his mind later on and in an attempt to wriggle out of the deal had fraudulently transferred the plot by way of gift in favor of his son (defendant No. 2)/appellant No. 2, which the plaintiff alleged was not binding on him and for that reason appellant No. 2 was imp leaded in the suit. it is further alleged that on 289.8.1978 defendant No. 1 wrote a letter to the plaintiff cancelling the agreement to sell and returned the amount by cheque of Rs. 8,510/-, which included bank collection charges. Since defendant No. 1 could not have unilaterally cancelled the agreement, which still subsisted, the plaintiff declined to accept the cheque and did not encash it. The plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and is still ready and willing to purchase the plot on payment of the balance price but defendant No. 1 had unilaterally backed out. Therefore, plaintiff was left with no option except to send a notice on 17.8.1978 calling upon defendants to execute necessary sale deed. No steps were taken by the defendants, therefore, the suit was filed.

15. The defendants did not dispute the fact that he did receive the two letters Exs. P-12 and P-13 and also some drafts of documents which were sent by the plaintiff but stated that the same were not acceptable to him. By letter Ex.P-12 the plaintiff informed defendant No. 1 that building plans were finalised and were ready for DDA's sanction. Along with the said letter he enclosed 11 sheets of documents, particulars of which are mentioned therein and requested the defendants to put his signatures at respective places and return the documents at the earliest so as to enable the plaintiff to submit the same to DDA. By letter Ex.P-13 dated 17.8.1978 the plaintiff informed defendant No. 1 that Along with 11 sheets he had also sent two affidavits and informed defendant No. 1 that document had not been returned so far by the defendant and requested that the same be returned to him. Thus as per the terms of receipt Ex.P-1 the plaintiff was rightly held by the trial court to have performed his part of agreement. The defendant No. 1 had to return the documents after putting his signatures so as to enable the plaintiff to have the building plan got sanctioned and the possession of the plot was to be handed over to the plaintiff on balance payment made. This aspect has been duly considered by the learned trial court. Instead of performing his part of the agreement it appears that defendant No. 1 Realizing that since property prices were on increase and had in fact increased by that time he backed out from his commitment and transferred that plot by way of gift in favor of his son after obtaining requisite permission for transfer. In his deposition he admitted that he applied for requisite sanction for transfer of plot on 20.6.1978. Sanction was accorded on 13.7.1978 and the gift deed was executed on 18.7.1978. The plaintiff on 17.10.1978 sent notice Ex.P-17 of which reply Ex.P-11 dated 28.10.1978 was received. The suit was filed on 12.12.1978.

16. In order to show that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the plaintiff besides deposing in his statement that whatever was necessary for him to do he had also examined P.W. 2 Shri P. Narayan, Architect, who had prepared detailed plans. This witness also proved letter Ex.P-19 dated 23.4.1978 with reference to the discussion he had with the plaintiff on 21.3.1978 detailing therein the architectural services to be rendered by him and also the fee thereof. Exs. P-22 and P-23 are the receipts and copy of cheque to evidence the payment having been made to the architect by the plaintiff in getting the plans prepared. Exs.P-23 and P-24 are the receipts of brokerage paid by the plaintiff for having struck the deal and Ex.P-25 is the receipt of an amount paid to the advocate for getting various documents drafted which the plaintiff sent to defendant No. 1 for his signatures. This documentary evidence in the light of the oral evidence on record is sufficient to affirm the findings of the trial court. The trial court was perfectly justified in holding that the version of defendant No. 1 that it was a construction agreement was an after thought and only a ruse to get rid off and avoid the plaintiff's claim.