- (1.) The appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the dismissal of the suit seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23.02.1988 by both the Courts below.
(2.) Mr. Arun Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the aforementioned suit was filed in respect of agreement to sell as mentioned above viz-a-viz plot No.184, Industrial Area, Phase1, Panchkula for a total consideration of Rs. 58,000/-, which was paid at that time. In fact, the vendor had received the entire sale consideration and also executed certain documents namely: (i) Will; (ii) Indemnity Bond; (iii) Affidavit and (iv) irrevocable General Power of Attorney. The vendor also applied to the Haryana Urban Development Authority for transfer of the plot in the name of the appellant. The required fee of Rs. 6000/- and other charges were also deposited. The Estate Officer, HUDA, without objection, referred the matter to the Chief Administrator, HUDA for onward transmission to the Director, Industries Department, Haryana. However, in the meeting held on 09.01.1989, the 2nd Line Committee rejected the case for transfer of the plot to the appellant-plaintiff. On receipt of this information, the appellantplaintiff immediately represented his case to the Director, Industries Department for review of the entire matter and he was advised to re-route the case through the Chief Administrator, HUDA and accordingly, the appellant-plaintiff resubmitted the case to the HUDA for necessary permission. All the relevant papers were supplied to the HUDA and a sum of Rs. 15000/- was also deposited. HUDA did not transfer the plot and in fact, the delay was not attributed to the plaintiff as he had always remained ready and willing perform his part of the contract. In fact, the vendor had become dishonest in the month of June, 1990 by sending the letter dated 19.06.1990, Ex.P29, as the prices of the property had increased by that time and therefore, he thought of cancelling the agreement.
(3.) He submitted that both the Courts below have committed illegality and perversity in misreading the contents of the letters, Ex.P4 Ex.P6, Ex.P7, Ex.P9 and Ex.P-16 whereby the factum of deposit of the transfer fee was acknowledged by the HUDA. In this context, he has drawn attention of this Court to the following correspondences.;