Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Suit for Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell dated 21.03.2004 and Cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 21.04.2004 executed in favour of the defendant No. 3 by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff.

2. The facts in brief are that the Property bearing No. 81, Sunder Nagar, admeasuring 0.179 acres (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property") was granted to Smt. Dhan Devi vide Perpetual Lease Deed dated 02.04.1956. She executed her last Will dated 20.10.1968, whereby the suit property was bequeathed in favour of her two sons, Shri B.D. Mehra and Major General R.D. Mehra. The suit property was mutated in their joint name vide L&DO Letter No. LIV.9/157(81)/75 dated 30.05.1975.

128. While it is not in dispute that the family members of the defendant No. 3, occupied the first and second floor and defendant No. 3 may have had an interest in purchase of the property but the claim that the transaction was kept under covers, is absolutely demolished by the testimony of the broker PW-2, Mr. Rajesh Ahuja who in his cross-examination, had submitted that the proposal for the first time for sale of the suit property, came to him in January/February, 2004, at which time the value of the property was between 3.25 Crore to 3.50 Crore. The deal was brought to him by father of Mr. Rohit Vaid. He did not deal in regard to this transaction with Mr. Rohit Vaid or with defendant No. 2, Ms. Ranjana Tandon. He has further explained in his cross-examination that he circulated a Letter in entire Sunder Nagar mentioning that the property is up for sale. Thereafter, Mr. Sharma, the father of the plaintiff, contacted him for purchase of the property, for his son and daughter-in-law. He circulated the Letter pertaining to the sale of property to the residents, whose addresses were obtained from the Directory of Sunder Nagar Residents from the father of the defendant No. 1.

144. The claim of DW-3, Mr. Pradeep Wig that only after he satisfied himself by seeing the Letter of cancellation dated 20.04.2004 that he entered into the MOU, is completely belied by the testimony of Pw-14, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, who has produced the records of the purchase of the stamp paper. He produced the original Challan dated 19.04.2004 whereby non-judicial stamp paper for Rs.25,20,000/- was purchased in respect of the Residence No. 81/ Ground Floor, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. The amount was deposited in favour of Mr. Pradeep Wig R/o 79, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi on 19.04.2004. This testimony thus, shows that pursuant to the negotiations between father of the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 3, the stamp paper for execution of MOU, got purchased even prior to the cancellation of the deal.

148. It has been argued on behalf of the plaintiff that both the parties were resident of Sunder Nagar and there is no logic of posting the Letter from Malka Ganj which is nowhere in the vicinity of Sunder Nagar. It is agued that the sole objective of doing so was to ensure that the Notice was served upon the Plaintiff only after the Sale Deed was executed.

149. From the manner in which the Letter of termination has been prepared, posted and delivered, leads much to be said. It is quite apparent that this Letter of Termination dated 20.04.2004, had been prepared only to satisfy the defendant No. 3 that the Agreement to Sell stands terminated because of his insistence to ensure that their prior Agreement to Sell stands cancelled, as is also admitted by him in his cross-examination. In this context, it would also be pertinent to refer to the admissions, made by the defendant No. 3, in his cross-examination that he had insisted on being satisfied about the cancellation of previous Agreement to Sell and only after the Letter for termination was shown to him, that he entered into the Memorandum of Understanding.