- (1.) Plaintiff is a society registered under the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act 1968, which carries on its business. Defendant is also a corporate body, the prime object of which is to provide facilities of residential and commercial facilities to the general public. Pursuant to the visit of the Chief Minister of the State the defendants initially agreed to allot plot No. 7 in Sector 2 in the Industrial Estate located at Parwanoo, measuring 17, 376 square metres @ Rs. 20/- per square metres valuing Rs. 3,47,520/-, though later on finding the actual measuring to be 16,135.6 square metres, its price was reduced to Rs. 3,22,713/- instead of the original price. The plot was allotted and possession thereof was handed over on 1-12-1976. 10% of the permium out of the total price of the aforesaid plot was paid on 30-11-1976 before the delivery of its possession on the following date. Remaining balance premium was agreed to be repaid in 15 instalments along with the interest calculated @ 9% per annum. One of the conditions was that in case of default of payment of the premium instalment or interest, the plaintiff would pay penal interest at double the rate of prevailing interest to the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the aforesaid transaction was an outright sale which matured in their favour on 2-4-1987 and the defendants were obliged to get the sale deed executed and registered in their favour, there being remission of stamp duty and registration charges in relation to the transactions entered into between society etc. and the defendant. Further, the case, set up by the plaintiff is that compounding of interest was never agreed to and the defendants have been paid an excess amount of Rs. 63,779.53 paise by the plaintiffs towards the sale price of the plot in question in addition to the agreed amount which stood fully paid along with interest. The defendants' claim for an amount of Rs. 1,22,948.70 paise is illegal, unwarranted and contrary to the factual position exhibited by the prolonged correspondence exchanged between the parties. Thus, the plaintiffs, through this suit, have sought declaration to the effect that the aforesaid transaction is an outright sale by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs in lieu of Rs. 3,22,713.00 @ Rs. 20/- per square metre and as such, the plaintiffs are the absolute oweners in possession of the plot in question. In addition, relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to execute a sale deed and get it registered after observing the codal formalities has also been sought. Over and above, the plaintiffs claim a decree for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 77,183/- (principal Rs. 63,779.53 paise + interest 18% per annum from 3-8-1987 to 2-4-1988 + expenses of financial legal advice and notice to the tune of Rs. 5,750/ -) in their favour and against the defendants.
(2.) Defendants vehemently resisted and contested the suit for want of a valid notice as per law and insufficiency of requisite Court fee paid on the reliefs claimed. On merit, the factum on allotment of the plot for the price stated in the plaint and on the agreed rate of interest as alleged by the plaintiffs, is not disputed. However, it is contended that the aforesaid plot was allotted on lease hold basis for a period of 95 years in accordance with the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter dated 13th April, 1977 which was a part of the earlier activities of the defendants in handing over the possession of the plot in question. The averment qua outright sale of the plot, has been vehemently disputed. In addition to the terms of the transaction stated by the plaintiffs it is contended that the plaintiff had also to pay penal interest as per clause (iv) of the allotment letter 13-4-1977. It is contended that the defendants are entitled to charge penal interest on the instalments which were not paid in the due time by the plaintiff. Further, the defendants contend that excess payments over and above the payment by way of instaments as and when made by the plaintiffs, have duly been given adjustments and the net result of the accounted for payments received from the plaintiff is that the defendant is still entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 1,22,948.70.
(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, this Court vide its order dated 7-8-1990 framed the following issues : 1. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction, as alleged? If so, its effect? OPD 2. Whether there was any privity of contract in between the parties with respect of the sale of disputed plot, as alleged? OPP 3. In case issue No. 2 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of contract by way of execution and registration of the sale deed by the defendants, as alleged? OPP. 4. In case agreement for sale as per issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff, whether the sale consideration was agreed to be paid by way of instalments, as alleged? OPP. 5. Whether the amount of consideration so alleged has been paid in excess to that of the agreed amount of the price of the plot ? If so, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover excess amount? OPP 6. Whether the disputed plot was allotted to the plaintiff by way of 95 years lease, as alleged? If so, its effect? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiffs failed to execute the lease deed and to make payment of lease money by way of instalments as agreed to in respect of the disputed plot, as alleged? If, so, its effect? OPD 8. Was the revised payment scheduled of lease money communicated to the plaintiffs on March 31, 1980 by the defendants, as alleged in of the pleadings? OPD 9. Whether a valid and legal notice has been served by the plaintiffs upon the defendant preceding the institution of the suit, as alleged? OPP 10. To what rate of interest, the defendant is entitled to recover from the plaintiff? OPP. 11 Whether the defendant has charged excess interest @ 18% instead of 9% upon defaulted payment of way of instalment, as alleged? OPP. 12 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest on the excess amount so allegedly paid by him? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP. 13 To what amount the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendants? OPP.;