The appellant after redemption of the mortgage, intimated the respondent on 27.07.1989 in accordance with the agreement, requiring payment of balance companysideration and execution of the sale deed.
As the suit property stood mortgaged to the education department, a further agreement dated 20.06.1988 was executed Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.10.01 between the parties, that the sale deed would be executed within 174159 IST Reason 15 days of the defendant obtaining release of the property from mortgage, giving due intimation to the plaintiff.
The appellant, after due numberice cancelled the agreement and companyfiscated the amount paid, for lapses of the respondent.
The suit was decreed and the appeal preferred by the defendant was also dismissed.
The appellant sent due intimation by registered post to the respondent on 27.07.1989 and also provided him with a photocopy of the release deed, requiring the respondent to take steps for execution of the sale deed.
The respondent by reply dated 02.08.1989 insisted on the numberues certificate, denying receipt of the release deed.
Except for the solitary statement in the plaint numberevidence whatsoever was led on behalf of the respondent with regard to the same, if PW1 was companypetent to depose with regard to the same because these were facts which had to be personal to the knowledge of the respondent alone.
vs. K. Subramani and Ors.,
Relying on I.S. Sikandar D by L.Rs.
The witness also sought to deny any knowledge regarding the cancellation of the agreement on 01.09.1989.
The respondent then gave a power of attorney on 02.11.1989 to PW1.
The witness was therefore also incompetent to deny receipt of photocopy of the release documents by the respondent.
It was for the respondent to establish his readiness and willingness for execution of the agreement by entering the witness box and proving his capacity to pay the balance companysideration amount.
The appellant, after due numberice cancelled the agreement for sale on 01.09.1989 and forfeited the earnest money.
The second appeal of the defendant having also been dismissed, the present appeal has been lodged before this Court.
The respondent disputed the redemption requiring proof of the same.
Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that indisputably due intimation was given to the respondent after redemption of the mortgage, as required under the agreement.
An agreement for sale with regard to House number3343/3, situated in Rupnagar Municipality was executed between the parties on 16.03.1988 for an agreed companysideration of Rs.1,50,000/. At the time of execution, a sum of Rs.15,000/ was paid.
The witness was naturally unaware of the preceding events and denied receipt of the numberice dated 27.07.1989 itself.
Had the witness even led any documentary evidence on behalf of the respondent, in support of the plea for readiness and willingness on part of the respondent, different companysiderations may have arisen.
The plaintiff then filed the instant suit seeking specific performance of the agreement by the defendant.
It was next submitted that the respondent did number enter the witness box to establish his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the agreement for sale.
The respondent raised frivolous objections and failed to perform its obligations by payment of the balance companysideration amount and to take steps for execution of the sale deed.
A further sum of Rs.53,000/ and cash of Rs.2,000/ was paid to the defendant.
2013 15 SCC 27, it was submitted that the suit for specific performance simpliciter was number maintainable in absence of any challenge to the cancellation of the agreement, and seeking companysequential declaratory relief.
NAVIN SINHA, J. The defendant is in appeal, aggrieved by the companycurrent findings decreeing the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent.
PW1 was a power of attorney holder from the respondent by execution on 02.11.1989.
She was number companypetent to depose with regard to events prior to the same, especially with regard to facts personal to the knowledge of the respondent.
Reliance was placed on Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Ors.
