9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erformance filed by the respondent/plaintiff for the suit property comprising of 42 sq. yards in plot no. 3221, Gali No. 1, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi, has been decreed. 2. The subject suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking specific performance of the receipt-cum-agreement to sell dated 22.1.2002. Total sale consideration as per the receipt-cum- agreement to sell was Rs. 1,50,000/-. The appellant/defendant received under the receipt-cum-agreement to sell a sum of Rs. 65,000/- in cash and Rs. 35,000/- by way of cheque. Balance consideration payable was Rs. 50,000/- and which was to be paid at the time of transfer of the title in the suit property by the appellant/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. As the appellant/def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant/defendant. (ii) Appellant/defendant claimed that he received the amount of Rs. 35,000/- by cheque under the agreement to sell, not as part consideration, but in return of a loan which the appellant/defendant pleaded was granted to the respondent/plaintiff, however, appellant/defendant could lead absolutely no evidence whatsoever of his giving allegedly a loan of Rs. 35,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff and which was allegedly repaid by a cheque which is referred to as part consideration in the receipt-cum-agreement to sell dated 22.1.2002. 5. Before the first appellate court an issue was raised that the receipt-cum-agreement to sell dated 22.1.2002 is not registered and hence cannot be looked into by virtue of provision of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Property Act, then by virtue of Section 49 of the Registration Act, surely a suit for specific performance will lie on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell. 7. Though, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant sought to argue that the subject agreement to sell is not a contract in the eyes of law, however, it is noticed that no such plea was raised in the trial court, no such issue framed and no such decision given by any of the two courts below, and therefore on a plea which is not raised a substantial question of law cannot be said to arise under Section 100 CPC. In any case, there is no dispute as to the identification of the suit property and the fact that receipt-cum-agreement to sell dated 22.1.2002 mentions the parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
