The first appeal was dismissed by the High Court on July 17, 2018 affirming the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
A sum of Rs.1 lakh by cheque was paid to the defendants.
At that time, Rs.90 lakhs were assessed as the capacity to avail loan by ICICI.
In reply dated April 27, 2005, it was asserted that a formal Agreement to Sell was to be executed 1 for short, ICICI on or before July 21, 2004 and the appellant was to pay 25 of the total companysideration.
PW3/1 issued by ICICI.
Veena Grover, known as house bearing number272, Gulmohar Enclave New Delhi 1100049.
Still aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court.
The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit on February 28, 2018, inter alia, holding that though the Agreement to Sell was executed but appellant has failed to prove her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the companytract.
On the expiry of the existing lease, the Agreement of Lease was extended for 11 months from September 01, 2004 but before the expiry of the lease, the appellant claims to have entered into an Agreement of Purchase the said property for a total sum of Rs.50 lakhs.
Since the appellant has failed to pay 25 of the total companysideration amount, therefore, the Agreement is number enforceable.
It is thereafter on May 25, 2005, suit for specific performance was filed.
PW 2 is her husband whereas PW 3 is the official from the ICICI who has deposed regarding the loan sought by the appellant and or her husband.
Similar is the affidavit of PW 2 Vishnu Kant, husband of the appellant.
Later, the appellant applied for loan to purchase the property in question.
272, Ground Floor, Gulmohar Enclave, New Delhi.
Learned companynsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant has earlier availed the loan of Rs.13 lakhs for purchase of a flat in Ghaziabad.
1 lac as advance money by cheque number 044386 dt.
However, the appellant was found entitled to Rs.1 lakh and interest thereon.
The parties led the evidence.
They had applied for a loan of Rs.60 lakhs but later on, down sized their requirement to about Rs.13 lakhs for purchasing the property other than the suit property and that they have never received the papers related to Flat No.
She stated that she had sufficient funds and resources which she can draw and is in a position to companyplete the transaction in her favour.
She also stated that the companybined annual income of her and her husband is about Rs.80 lakhs per annum and they can easily avail a loan of upto Rs.1 crore from any bank and a sum of Rs.50 lakhs is very easy to muster.
The husband of the appellant, who as an employee of M s. GE Capital Services India Ltd., was in occupation of the said residential premises on a monthly rent of Rs.13,000/ to be paid by the tenant i.e. M s. GE Capital Services India Ltd. since September 2002 to the landlord.
18.7.2004 issued from ICICI Bank Vasant Vihar New Delhi and agree to furnish all the further relevant document such as Agreement to Sale, Sale Deed, Will, Possession Certificate, NOCs etc.
The Bank has approved the loan of Rs.50 lakhs but same was number disbursed since an Agreement on a stamp paper of Rs.50/ was number executed by the defendants.
In cross examination, he stated that 2 3 months prior to the said approval, Vishnu Kant and the appellant were sanctioned home loan to the tune of Rs.13 lakhs though they were entitled for the loan to the extent of Rs.90 lakhs keeping in view their solvency.
272, Ground Floor, Gulmohar Enclave, New Delhi.
In this transaction I acknowledge the receipt of Rs.
The respondents denied the claim of the appellant to seek specific performance of the Agreement dated July 18, 2004.
The appellant relied upon sanction letter dated July 30, 2004 Ex.
50 lacs which is a freehold joint property in my name and in my wifes name Smt.
The appellant is said to have written a letter to the defendants on September 14, 2004 to fix the date to companyplete the pending documentation and other formalities followed by another letter dated December 21, 2004.
PW 3 is Anil Kumar Shrivastava, Zonal Head North , ICICI who companyfirmed that the letter dated July 30, 2004 shown to him from judicial file was issued by his Company though, his Company does number have any companyy of this letter in the record.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. The unsuccessful plaintiff is in appeals before this Court arising out of a suit for specific performance of an Agreement dated July 18, 2004 in respect of Flat No.
The Agreement reads thus I, J. S. Grover S o G. S. Grover, resident of M 12 First Floor Kailash Colony, New Delhi 48 have agreed in principle and in terms to sell my house for a companysideration of Rs.
for the purpose of transferring the above said property in the name of Ritu Saxena at present residing at 272, Gulmohar Enclave New Delhi 110049 and a permanent resident of B 377 Indira Nagar Lucknow, U.P. sd 18.7.2004 S. Grover The appellant relies upon companymunication dated July 30, 2004 that a loan of Rs.50 lakhs has been approved by the ICICI Home Finance Company Limited1 but the disbursal of the loan was only after the bank receives all income tax and property documents as discussed with her husband.
A legal numberice dated April 19, 2005 was also served.
It was agreed that all further relevant documents such as Agreement to Sell, Sale Deed, Will, Possession Certificate and No Objection Certificate for the purpose of transferring the said property shall be executed.
A decree to this effect was passed by the learned Trial Court.
