Sunil Kumar Dhankar vs Virender Singh & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 3812 Del

6
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                    +      RFA No.374/2010

%                            Date of decision: 8th August, 2011

      SUNIL KUMAR DHANKAR                   ..... Appellant
                   Through : Mr. Shazad Khan, Adv.

                  versus

      VIRENDER SINGH & ORS                 ..... Respondents
                    Through : Mr. S.P. Sharma, Adv.

CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may           NO
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?          NO

3.      Whether the judgment should be                  NO
        reported in the Digest?

                        JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. The appellant has challenged the judgment of the

learned Trial Court whereby the learned Trial Court held that

the appellant is not entitled to the decree of specific

performance.

2. The appellant's case is that vide Agreement to Sell dated

23rd September, 1992, the appellant agreed to purchase the

land admeasuring 12.5 Biswas in Khasra No.272/2 (1-14),

Village Said-ul-Ajaib, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi from the

respondents for a total sale consideration of `7,22,500/- out of

which the appellant paid a sum of `80,000/- at the time of

execution of the sale agreement and the balance sale

consideration was payable within three months. The appellant

claims to have approached the respondents with the balance

sale consideration in November, 1992 but the respondents

sought time till December, 1992. The appellant claims to have

again approached the respondents in end of December, 1992

and January, 1993 but the respondents did not accept the

balance sale consideration. The appellant instituted the suit

on 28th February, 1993.

3. The learned Trial Court held that the Agreement to Sell

dated 23rd September, 1992 was unenforceable as the suit

property was admittedly owned by four persons including the

three respondents and their brother, Brahm Singh who neither

signed the sale agreement nor received any sale consideration

from the appellant. The learned Trial Court held that the

Agreement to Sell recorded the payment of earnest money of

`80,000/- by the appellant to the respondents whereas in the

plaint, the appellant stated to have paid only `65,000/-.

However, the appellant could not even prove the payment of

`65,000/- to the respondents. The appellant claims to have

paid `30,000/- by way of cheque but could not even prove the

encashment of the said cheque. The appellant also did not

lead any evidence before the learned Trial Court to prove that

he had funds available with him to pay the balance sale

consideration. For all the aforesaid reasons, the learned Trial

Court held that the appellant was not entitled to the decree of

specific performance.

4. There is no infirmity in the findings of the learned Trial

Court. This Court concurs with the findings of the learned Trial

Court. There is no merit in this appeal, which is hereby

dismissed. All pending applications are also dismissed.

J.R. MIDHA, J AUGUST 08, 2011 mk