KANSHI RAM Vs. M PARKASH JAWAL
LAWS(DLH)-1995-4-57
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on April 01,1995

KANSHI RAM Appellant
VERSUS
OM PARKASH JAWAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

OUSEPH VARGHESE VS. JOSEPH ALEY [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

Dr.M.K.Sharma - (1.)This appeal by the defendant No. 1 has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.2.1972 passed by Shri B.B.Gupta, Commercial Sub-Judge, Delhi, in Suit No. 111/1970 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1.
(2.)The aforesaid suit being suit No. 111/ 1990 was filed by the plaintiff, (respondent No. 1 herein) stating inter alia that defendant No. 1 is the owner of the property detailed in para 1 of the plaint and that on 7.4.1969 the defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell the suit property in dispute to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.l6,000.00 out of which Rs.l,500.00 were paid towards part payment of sale price and the balance price was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed. It was further stated that the defendant No. 1 was to execute the sale deed within 15 days on receipt of permission of the Land and Development Officer to sell the said property to the plaintiff and that on 13.10.1969 the L&DO granted the necessary permission to defendant No. 1 to sell the said property to the plaintiff and that the entire expenses for obtaining the permission were borne by the plaintiff. It was also stated in the plaint that under the terms of the permission the defendant No. 1 was to execute and get the documents 576 registered within 90 days of the issue of the said permission and although the plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement the defendant No. I refused to execute the sale deed. Accordingly, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff praying for specific performance of the contract for sale and possession of the property by execution of the sale deed and in the alternative prays for Rs.l2,000.00 as compensation for loss and inconvenience caused to him together with the refund of the advance money paid to the defendant No. 1.
(3.)The suit was contested by the defendants by filing their written statement. It was stated in the written statement that the defendant No. I did not purchase the stamp paper and he is 83 not entitled to decree for specific performance.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.