R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) SMT . Aruna Gupta (defendant No. 1 in the trial Court) daughter of Maharaj Singh Walia has filed the present regular first appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1999 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, who granted an alternative relief and passed a money decree for a sum of Rs. 15,29,417.15 with proportionate costs in favour of plaintiff Ranbir Singh Dhanjal with future interest @ 12% per annum on the decretal amount and further future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till payment. However, the suit of plaintiff Ranbir Singh Dhanjal against defendants No. 2 and 3, namely Ashima Gupta and Subhash Gupta was dismissed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case can be described in the following manner :- Plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of 1/4th share in the property Unit No. B-I-974, out of the property measuring 2400 Sq. Yards situated at Rajpura Road, Ludhiana as shown red in the site plant attached with the plaint and in the alternative he made a prayer for grant of money decree to the tune of Rs. 22,05,000/-. The case set up by the plaintiff in the trial Court was that he was a resident of Canada. He visited India in the month of January, 1994 and met defendant No. 1, who was widow at that time, at New Delhi Air Port and they married with each other on 20.2.1994 by performance of Anand Karaj ceremony at Delhi. Their marriage was also got registered with the Registrar of Marriages, New Delhi on 23.2.1994. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 along with defendants No. 2 and 3 was co-owner of the suit property described in the head-note of the plaint and it was locked in litigation with the tenant. Since defendants were in need of money for getting the property vacated from the tenant, therefore Aruna Gupta showed her willingness to dispose of her 1/4th share in the property and entered into an oral agreement to sell the same to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 20 lacs in the presence of Arun Sehgal and Sonu. Besides, defendant No. 3 also obtained Rs. 4.55 lacs from the plaintiff for getting vacated her share in the property and out of the said amount Rs. 2.5 lacs were returned by her to the plaintiff within few days and a writing to that effect was executed. On the assurance of defendant No. 1 that she will execute and get registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after the same is vacated by the tenant, the plaintiff paid her total sale consideration of Rs. 20 lacs. Rs. 5 lacs and Rs. 15 lacs were paid through Hongkong Bank, New Delhi by withdrawing the same from N.R.I. account of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had not insisted for written agreement of sale on account of his full faith in his would be wife. In November 1994, the plaintiff came to India and pursued the litigation. On 4.4.1995, the suit between Aruna Gupta and other co-owners with the tenant was got dismissed and on account of this long drawn litigation defendant No. 3 approached him for paying further sum of Rs. 4.55 lacs and the plaintiff paid the same. However, defendant No. 3 paid Rs. 2.50 lacs through bank drafts and the balance was acknowledged by him through separate writing. However, to the utter shock, defendant No. 1 started humiliating the plaintiff and started backing out from her agreement and seeing her intention, the plaintiff sent notices to her through his counsel Mr. C.P. Sen, Advocate calling her to execute and register sale deed in his favour, but she refused to accept the service of the notice and the same were returned back with the report of refusal. It was further alleged by the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 failed to perform her part of the contract whereas he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and (sic) No. 051-605202-054 and another sum of Rs. 3,77,422.63 against account No. 051-605202-055. This amount was given by the plaintiff to her in June, 1994 for maintaining herself and asking her to purchase a bigger car. Out of the said amount she purchased Maruti 1000 for a sum of Rs. 3,63,000/-, which was stolen and a complaint was lodged and the insurance company paid a claim of Rs. 3,60,000/- and she gave a cheque of Rs. 3,60,000/- to the plaintiff. Out of the remaining amount, defendant No. 1 invested Rs. 2 lacs in the shape of FDR with SRF Finances Limited, Rs. 4 lacs with Motor and General Finance Limited and Rs. 2 lacs with I.T.C. Classic Finance Limited. Against the deposit of Rs. 4 lacs (supra), she obtained a loan of Rs. 3 lacs. All the deposits were made so as to provide maintenance to her. She denied that she received any money from the plaintiff for getting her share in the suit property vacated. Elaborating her defence she pleaded that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was given to Ashish Kumar vide draft No. 0/5579 dated 25.3.1995 and the matter was compromised in the Court and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 4.4.1995. As per the defendants the story propounded by the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 was in need of money to get the portion of suit property vacated and for that reason she agreed to sell her share in the property to plaintiff is false. Defendant No. 1 accused the plaintiff being a cruel person, who started beating her after the marriage and caused serious injuries to her due to which she was hospitalised. The plaintiff also caused injuries to Ashima, daughter of defendant No. 1 from her previous marriage, and she was also admitted to Shri Ganga Ram Hospital. She spent Rs. 7,256/- as expenses of Shri Ganga Ram Hospital besides a sum of Rs. 3,700/- and Rs. 375/- on her treatment and clinical investigation. Report was also lodged with the police. Defendant No. 1 further pleaded that plaintiff No. 1 removed her 21 Pashmina shawls of the total value of Rs. 5 lacs without informing her and this matter was also reported to the police on 15.11.1995. On account of her relationship with the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 took the stand that she could hardly agree to sell her property in favour of the plaintiff and the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance is also not legally maintainable because of the provisions of Foreign Citizen Regulation Act as the plaintiff has not taken the permission to enter into any agreement of sale with defendant No. 1. Moreover, defendant No. 3 had not taken any amount from the plaintiff. With this broad defence the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff filed re-joinder to the written statement in which he reiterated the averments of the plaint by denying those of the written statement. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :- "1. Whether the defendant No. 1 entered into an oral agreement to sell her 1/4th share in favour of the plaintiff on 10.2.1994 as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has paid full and final consideration to the defendant No. 1 as alleged ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has been and is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract ? OPP 4. Whether the defendant No. 1 has committed breach of the contract ? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession by way of specific performance of 1/4th share in the suit property vide agreement dated 10.2.1994 ? OPP 6. Whether in the alternative the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 22,05,000/- ? OPP 7. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties ? OPD 8. Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Foreign Citizen Regulation Act ? OPD 9. Whether the suit for specific performance is not maintainable ? OPD 10. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to institute the present suit ? OPD 11. Relief."
(3.) PARTIES led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. Issues No. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 were taken up together by the trial Court and on the conclusion of the proceedings issues No. 1 to 5, 8 and 9 were decided against the plaintiff and issue No. 6 was partly decided in favour of the plaintiff and he was granted a money decree for a sum of Rs. 15,29,417.15 with proportionate costs and interest as I have stated in the earlier portion of this judgment. Issues No. 7 and 10 were decided against the defendants.;