Mohan vs Dalel Singh And Anr.
1999 Latest Caselaw 146 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. The plaintiff filed this suit for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 12.4.1996 whereby the defendants had allegedly agreed to sell, convey and transfer to the plaintiff the agricultural land in their bhumidari and possession comprised in khasra No. 59/9(4-16) and 59/10(4-12) in Village Nangal Thakaran, Tehsil Delhi @ Rs. 5,55,000/- per acre. The total land allegedly agreed to be sold measured 9 bighas and 8 biswas. The plaintiff is stated to have paid a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- as advance to the defendants and the time of completion was fixed one year from the date of the agreement. In accordance with the agreement to sell, the defendants were allegedly required to obtain No Objection Certificate from the competent authority under the Delhi Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972 and Income Tax Clearance certificate and all other permissions and certificates required for the purpose to enable them to execute a valid and lawful sale deed of the land in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendants did not obtain No Objection Certificate from the competent authority though they had allegedly signed the necessary forms required for the purpose. The plaintiff is alleged to have reached the office of the Sub Registrar on 4.4.1997 but the defendants failed to reach the said office and on being contacted by the plaintiff, the defendants promised and assured the plaintiff that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff would be executed within 10 to 15 days. The defendants were allegedly delaying and protracting the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff due to which the plaintiff sent legal notice dated 11.7.1997 to the defendants requiring them to receive the balance consideration upon execution of the sale deed and to sign the proposed sale deed within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. On the defendants not agreeing to execute the sale deed the plaintiff filed this suit for specific performance. Alongwith the suit an application (I.A. No. 8364/97) was filed for an injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, conveying and selling the agricultural land measuring 9 bighas and 9 biswas in Village Nangal Thakaran, Tehsil Delhi till the disposal of the suit. By this order I propose to dispose of this application of the plaintiff for injunction.

2. The defendants have filed the written statement and have stated that as the plaintiff had failed to perform his part of the contract, the agreement stood rescinded and the amount paid by the plaintiff stood forfeited. It was also stated in the written statement that the plaintiff had not come to the court with clean hands and was guilty of forgery. According to the defendants the suit land was agreed to be sold @ Rs. 5,55,000/- per acre but they found that the consideration amount in the No Objection Certificate was mentioned only Rs. 1 lac. The signatures of the defendants on the

application form for obtaining No Objection Certificate were stated to have been forged by the plaintiff. Moreover, according to the defendants Mrs. Avinash Kaur, Mahender Kaur and one Sangeet Aggarwal were brought to the office of the Sub Registrar by the plaintiff on 4.4.1997 as the prospective buyers whereas the agreement was in the name of the plaintiff. It is also stated that on 4.4.1997 when the defendants went to the office of the Sub Registrar the plaintiff had neither brought the typed sale deed nor the balance consideration whereas the defendants had alongwith them the Income Tax Clearance Certificate to enable them to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff on that date according to the defendants, brought two No Objection Certificates with respect to the suit land quoting the sale consideration as Rs. 1 lac per acre which was less than the agreed amount. The signatures of the defendants on the application for grant of no objection certificates were allegedly forged by the plaintiff. In one No Objection Certificate the name of Mrs. Avinash Kaur and Mahender Kaur was mentioned as the prospective buyer whereas in the other No Objection Certificate the name of Sangeet Aggarwal was mentioned as the prospective buyer. The plaintiff, according to the defendants, did not obtain No Objection Certificate on the basis of the application forms signed by the defendants but No Objection Certificates were obtained on the basis of forms on which the signatures of the defendants were forged. Defendant No. 1, according to the defendants, did not know English and his signatures had been forged in English on both the applications for grant of No Objection Certificates. The name and signatures of the other defendant were also forged on the applications. According to the defendants, time was the essence of the contract and as the plaintiff had failed to perform his obligations under the agreement within the stipulated time, the advance paid by the plaintiff was stated to have been forfeited and moreover the plaintiff was not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction as they had forged the signatures of the defendants on the application forms.

3. Mr. Rana, learned counsel-appearing for the plaintiff has contended that as the defendants had agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff and had executed an agreement to sell on 12.4.1996 the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction restraining the defendants from transferring the land in favour of any other person. It is submitted by Mr. Rana that in case the defendants were not restrained from transferring, disposing of or creating third party rights in the suit land, irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff and it may also lead to multiplicity of proceedings.

4. It is not denied by the defendants that vide the agreement to sell dated 12.4.1996 the defendants had agreed to sell the suit land @ Rs. 5,55,000/- per acre free from all encumbrances and had also received an advance of Rs. 1,10,000/- from the plaintiff. The objection of the defendants, however, is that as the plaintiff had failed to fulfilll the obligations under the agreement within the time stipulated in the agreement and had also forged the signatures of the defendants on the application forms for obtaining No Objection Certificate, the plaintiff was not entitled either to specific performance of the agreement to sell or to the equitable relief of injunction from this Court.

5. In paragraph 2 of the written statement the defendants have stated that the "plaintiff obtained the signatures of the defendants on the application form for obtaining the No Objection Certificate on 13.3.1997. The plaintiff asked the defendants to be

present in the office of the Sub Registrar on 4.4.1997 on which date the regular sale deed was to be executed by defendants in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was to bring the balance consideration, the typed sale deed and the No Objection Certificate. The defendants went to the office of the Sub Registrar on 4.4.1997 with the Income-tax Clearance Certificate. The plaintiff also came. The plaintiff neither brought the typed sale deed nor the balance consideration. The plaintiff, however, brought two No Objection Certificates with respect to the suit land quoting the sale consideration much less than the agreed amount and forging the signatures of the defendants on both the No Objection Certificates". As the sale consideration was quoted at Rs. 1 lac for the entire land in Khasra No. 59/9 and the same amount of Rs. 1 lac per acre for Khasra No. 59/1- which was much less than the agreed amount the defendants did not agree to execute the sale deed. Moreover, the signatures of the defendants were stated to have been forged on the application forms for obtaining No Objection Certificate inasmuch as the defendants had not signed any form where this amount of Rs. 1 lac was mentioned. One of the defendants namely Dalel Singh is stated to be illiterate and did not know English whereas his signatures on the application forms were in English. Similarly, the signatures of defendant No. 2 were also stated to be forged on the application form for obtaining No Objection Certificate.

6. The plaintiff has filed the replication in reply to the written statement of the defendants and in reply to para 2 of the written statement the plaintiff has not specifically denied any of the allegations made in paragraph 2 of the written statement. All that has been stated by the plaintiff is that paras 2 and 3 of the written statement were wrong and incorrect. In my view, the allegations made in para 2 of the written statement having not been specifically denied, the same for purposes of deciding this application would be deemed to have been admitted. In any case, it is not denied by the plaintiff that in the No Objection Certificate the sale consideration is mentioned as Rs. 1 lac whereas it is admitted case of the parties that the land was agreed to be sold @ Rs. 5,55,000/- per acre. It is not explained as to how this figure of Rs. 1 lac came to be mentioned in the application for obtaining No Objection Certificate. Defendant No. 1 has signed the agreement to sell in Urdu whereas on the applications for obtaining No Objection Certificates his signatures appear in English. It is not even stated in the replication by the plaintiff that defendants 1 and 2 had put their signatures on the application for obtaining No Objection Certificate and that the signatures appearing on the said application were those of the defendants. The allegations made in the written statement having not been denied and no explanation having been given as to how this figure of Rs. 1 lac came to be mentioned in the application for grant of No Objection Certificate, the court" has at this stage ho reason to disbelieve the defendants that their signatures on the application for No Objection Certificate were forged.

7. The defendants have in their written statement specifically pleaded that on 4th April, 1997, when the parties had reached the office of the Sub-Registrar, they had with them the Income-tax clearance certificate, but the plaintiff had neither brought the typed sale deed nor the balance consideration. This has also not been denied by the plaintiff in his replication. In fact, the plaintiff even in the plaint has not stated that

on 4th April, 1997 when he reached the office of the Sub-Registrar, he had the balance consideration with him.

8. In my view, therefore, the plaintiff has not been able to prima facie satisfy this Court that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Balance of convenience also, in my view, is not in favour of the plaintiff.

9. In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff has not been able to make out any case for the grant of any relief in this application. Application is, accordingly dismissed.