Suminder Singh Reen vs Satya Khurana

Hima Kohli, J.—At the outset, Learned Counsel for the plaintiff states that the relief in the present suit may be confined to prayers (a), (b) and (d) as she does not wish to press prayer clause (c) which is for the relief of compensation. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The relief in the present suit is confined to prayers (a), (b) and (d), while excluding prayer clause (c). The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendant in respect of the ground floor of premises bearing No. 80/65-A, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ''the suit premises'') praying inter alia that a decree of specific performance be passed in his favour and against the defendant, directing her to co-operate with the plaintiff for getting the Sale Deed dated 30.11.2011 in respect of the suit premises registered in the office of the Registrar of Assurances and hand over vacant peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiff.

It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff had wanted to purchase a property in the locality of Malviya Nagar. The son of the defendant, who is stated to be a property dealer, arranged for his mother to sell the suit premises to the plaintiff. After negotiations, the defendant had agreed to sell the ground floor of the suit premises to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 28 lacs. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 11 lacs to the defendant in cash as part sale consideration, thus leaving a sum of Rs. 17 lacs as due and payable to the defendant.

Though there is no averment in the plaint as to the manner in which the remaining sum of Rs. 17 lacs was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, counsel for the plaintiff states that the modality of paying the balance amount by the plaintiff has been narrated in the recital of the Sale Deed dated 30.11.2011 of the suit premises that was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Para 1 of the Sale Deed, narrates that the defendant had received a sum of Rs. 28 lacs from the plaintiff and out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 17,50,000/- had been received in cash and the balance sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- was received by virtue of two cheques dated 26.11.2011 and 28.11.2011 for Rs. 7,50,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- respectively.

It is the case of the plaintiff that on 25.11.2011 he had purchased stamp duty worth Rs. 1,68,000/- and the Sale Deed was executed by the parties on 30.11.2011. The stamp duty purchased by the plaintiff is marked as Ex. PW1/3. The said Sale Deed (Ex. PW1/2) was signed by the parties on every page and it bears the finger prints and thumb impression of the plaintiff and the defendant on the reverse side of two pages. Further, it is submitted that Form-A enclosed with the Sale Deed was duly signed by the defendant after she had received the entire sale consideration. However, after executing the Sale Deed, the defendant failed to accede to the repeated requests of the plaintiff to get the said document registered. Finally, when the plaintiff got suspicious about the conduct of the defendant and the manner in which, she was dilly-dallying, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a letter dated 15.12.2011 (Ex. PW1/4) to the defendant calling upon her to get the Sale Deed registered. However, the aforesaid letter was returned by the postal authorities with the remark that no such person was residing at the said address. The aforesaid article has been exhibited as Ex. PW1/5. The site plan of the suit premises has been filed by the plaintiff and is marked as Ex. PW1/1. In the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiff claims that he had no option but to institute the present suit on 09.01.2012.

The present suit was registered on 10.01.2012 and summons were issued to the defendant, returnable for 08.05.2012. On the interim application filed by the plaintiff, it was directed that the defendant would maintain status quo with regard to the title and possession of the suit premises. On 08.05.2012, it was reported that the defendant had refused to accept the summons. Accordingly, vide order dated 29.05.2012, the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte and the plaintiff was directed to file an affidavit by way of evidence. An affidavit by way of evidence was filed by the plaintiff on 27.07.2012. The same is marked as Ex. PW1/X. The plaintiff has tendered his examination-in-chief affidavit alongwith the documents marked as Ex. PW1/1 to PW1/5. He had also produced the original Sale Deed before the Joint Registrar that was perused and returned. Based on the aforesaid evidence, the plaintiff prays for a decree of specific performance against the defendant in respect of the suit premises.

This Court has heard the counsel for the plaintiff and examined the evidence placed on record in the light of the averments that have been made in the plaint.

As noticed above, in the present case, the plaintiff had purchased stamp duty worth Rs. 1,68,000/- (Ex. PW1/3) on 25.11.2011. The documents filed by the plaintiff reveals that the Sale Deed was duly executed on 30.11.2011. The same mentions the fact that the sale consideration of the suit premises was Rs. 28 lacs. The details of the stamp duty purchased, apart from the details of the suit premises, its land value and the cost of construction find mention on the first page of the Sale Deed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has pointed out that the Sale Deed (Ex. PW1/2) bears the signatures of the plaintiff and the defendant on each page and it also bears the thumb impression and finger prints of the plaintiff and the defendant on the reverse side of the first and second pages. In the first para of the recitals contained in the Sale Deed, the parties have confirmed the fact that the total sale consideration of the suit premises is Rs. 28 lacs and that the entire amount had been received by the defendant from the plaintiff. It is submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff that the only formality that was left to be completed was the registration of the aforesaid Sale Deed and possession thereof.

As regards possession, though in para 3 of the Sale Deed it has been mentioned that the defendant had handed over the vacant peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff at the time of execution thereof, counsel for the plaintiff submits that as a matter of fact, the actual physical possession of the suit premises had not been handed over to the plaintiff. However, there is no averment to the aforesaid effect in the plaint. It is further explained by the counsel for the plaintiff that the aforesaid recital was made a part of the Sale Deed for the reason that the plaintiff had been orally assured by the defendant that she would hand over the possession of the suit premises to him at the time of getting the Sale Deed registered, which event had not occurred. She further states that upon the present suit for specific performance being decreed for the relief of registration of the Sale Deed, the plaintiff shall thereafter proceed to take necessary steps for execution of the judgment and decree in accordance with law for taking possession of the suit premises.

As the averments made in the suit remain un-rebutted in the absence of any contest thereto, the same are accepted as true and correct.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, a decree for specific performance is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to render all necessary co-operation to the plaintiff in getting the Sale Deed of the suit premises, i.e., ground floor of premises bearing No. 80/65-A, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi as detailed in the site plan(Ex. PW1/1) registered in favour of the plaintiff and thereafter, hand over vacant and peaceful possession thereof to him. It is further directed that in case the defendant fails to cooperate with the plaintiff by accompanying him to the office of the Registrar of Assurances for getting the Sale Deed of the suit premises registered in his favour within a period of three months, then Mr. Rajeev Kumar Bhardwaj (Mobile No. 9899978994) an officer of this Court, shall be authorized to take necessary steps for and on her behalf for getting the Sale Deed registered in favour of the plaintiff, for which purpose, he shall be paid a sum of Rs. 40,000/- by the plaintiff. The suit is disposed of with costs while quantifying the counsel''s fee as Rs. 20,000/-.