TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... steps for completing necessary formalities towards execution of the sale-deed. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 12.12.1979 plaintiff filed the suit claiming decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24thMarch, inter alia, alleging that Delhi Development Authority had granted a lease of a big plot of land in favour of New Friends Cooperative House Building Society and the Society had granted sub lease in favour of its members. Durga Nath Sharma, defendant No. 1 being one of the members of the Society was granted a sub lease with respect to plot No. 334 measuring 524 Sq. yards under sub lease dated 2.7.1974. The said defendant with a view to sell the said plot entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 24.3.1978 at a fixed price of ₹ 85,000/-. A sum of ₹ 8,500/- was received by him towards part payment of the price, the balance was payable within 15 days after receipt of approval of building plan by Delhi Development Authority. The said defendant also agreed to execute necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff such as, (a) construction agreement (b) General and Special Power of Attorney, (c) Will, (d) Agreement to Sell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no contract to sell the said plot, transfer of which was prohibited under Clause II Sub Clause (6) (a) and (6)(b) of the lease deed executed between President of India and the New Friends Cooperative House Building Society and of the sub lease executed between the Society and the defendant No. l. The defendant No. 1 gave his own explanation about the receipt of the amount and of the nature of transaction with the plaintiff stating that at one point of time the defendant No. 1 was interested in sale of the plot, if he could get a reasonable price and in case there was no legal implication, for which purpose he contacted Pandit Brothers Estate Agency, Lajpat Nagar, a broker. When on his visit from Jamshedpur to Delhi, he consulted the Society officials and was informed that he could not sell, transfer or mortgage the plot, at that time, the defendant No. 1 thought of constructing a house on the plot. Since he was residing at Jamshedpur the said broker informed him that he could get the services of a building contractor, who could construct the building. The plaintiff agreed to construct a house on the plot according to the plan sanctioned by the authorities in favour of defendant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal, the High Court after considering the rival submissions came to hold that there were several documents which tend to suggest that defendant No. 1 was aware of the fact that there was an embargo in the lease deed that transfer could not take place without permission. It appears that he was also aware of the fact that permission, if accorded, by the Delhi Development Authority for affecting transfer, would be subject to payment of unearned increase and for that reason alone, in one of the letters defendant No. 1 had specifically informed the property dealer that while making offers that aspect was to be kept in view i.e. 50% of the unearned increase should be paid by the transferee. The High Court made reference to the lease deed dated 2.7.1974 (Exhibit P-4), letter dated 27.9.77 addressed by defendant No. 1 to the property dealer indicating his intention to sell if the value would be reasonable and there was no implication in future; Exhibit P-5, i.e. letter dated 16.10.1977 by which the defendant No. 1 asked the property dealer that buyer shall have to pay 50% of the difference between original cost and the market value; Exhibit P-6 i.e. the letter dated 10.1.78 exchanged by d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt as well as the High Court have categorically found that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the arrangement. In fact, if DDA refused to grant permission a suit for damages can be filed. The plea of hardship which is presently being raised was never raised before the Courts below and was not also pleaded. The conditions 6A and 6B to the reference has been made by learned Counsel for the appellant does not create an absolute bar. The plea that the plaintiff was merely a contractor was also not accepted and it was found that the finding of fact that the plaintiff was not a contractor as claimed by the appellant. 9. The Privy council in Motilal v. Nanhelal, laid down that if the vendor had agreed to sell the property which can be transferred only with the sanction of some government authority, the court has jurisdiction to order the vendor to apply to the authority within a specified period, and if the sanction is forthcoming, to convey to the purchaser within a certain time. This proposition of law was followed in Mrs. Chandnee Widya Wati Madden v. C.L. Katial [1964]2SCR495 , and R.C. Chandiok v. Chuni Lal Sabharwal [1971]2SCR573 . The Privy Council in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
