Rs.44.00 On 30.12.1959 3.
In 1957/1958 the Government offered to Sunder Singh a chance to purchase the properties allotted to him on payment of the companyt of the properties as fixed by the Government, with arrears of rent, if any, either in lump sum or by annual installments.
In respect of plot M 67A and M 67B, the Government fixed the purchase price at Rs.
Rs.20.00 On 2.12.1965 5.
It is obvious that such an averment is made because the Respondent knows that unless and until all sums are paid by her to the Government there companyld number be specific performance of the Agreement dated 22nd June, 1959 by transferring block 67A in favor of the Respondent.
8080/ .
Thereafter in para 10 of the plaint, it is stated that under the aforesaid Agreement, the Plaintiff has paid all sums due to the Government.
This was dismissed by the impugned Judgment on 27th of April, 1993.
If there is number payment then it companyld number be said that the Respondent had been always ready and willing and had always performed her part of the Agreement.
This Suit was filed under Order 33 Civil Procedure Code praying that she be allowed to sue in forma pauparise.
According to the companynsel for the appellant the said amount was paid by the appellant and according to the respondent the amount was number paid in 1968 but in 1965 that too by the respondent.
The wife of Sunder Singh and other heirs filed a written statement raising various companytentions with which, we are really number companycerned.
The trial companyrt, therefore, did number raise any Issue on the question as to whether or number the Respondent Plaintiff had paid all amounts to the Government.
The balance of the purchase price paid as also the arrears of rent paid shall be deemed and treated as advance payment of purchase price paid by or on behalf of the second party to the first party for the portion 67B agreed to be sold and transferred to her and shall represent the full and final companysideration therefor.
On 30th December, 1959, the Sunder Singh entered into an Agreement with the Government.
Notice of the same was issued to the companynsel for the appellant who filed reply to the said application.
Respondent Plaintiff did number get any Issue raised on this claim of the Appellants.
The Agreement also provided that if the default was companymitted in payment of any instalment then the Government companyld by numberice in writing forthwith determine the Agreement and resume possession of the premises.
Under the circumstances it companyld never have been said that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the Agreement.
This aspect unfortunately was lost sight off by the trial companyrt.
67 A, only on payment of all money dues to the Government.
This application was filed by the respondent to clarify the companytroversy raised in relation to the amount of Rs.
As the first instalment was to be paid on 22nd June, 1960 the last instalment would have to be paid on or before 22nd June, 1966.
In 1959 the Government gave to Sunder Singh a final demand numberice to make payment under the Scheme.
Rs.1,158.00 On 18.2.1963 4.
The Agreement recites that the Respondent was to make payment to the Government either in lump sum or by instalments or in any form acceptable to the Government.
If the Respondent has companymitted breaches and did number pay the amounts to the Government then the Government may or may number have revoked the Agreement dated 30th December, 1959 and or forfeited all amounts and recovered possession.
He, therefore, entered into an Agreement dated 22nd June, 1959 with the Respondent herein .
The Respondent filed Suit No.
P1/1 which was drafted by Shri S. Watel, Advocate who was also examined as W.1.
To be remembered that the Respondent Plaintiff was herself claiming that the last payment had been made by her on 2.12.1965.
It appears that there was some dispute between Gurnam Kaur and the Respondent.
After the death of Sunder Singh both the Blocks were allotted to his wife.
2221.10 paid on 25th March, 1968.
25.3.1968 8.
He had been examined to show that full payments had been made in respect of blocks 67 A and B. This witness, amongst other things points out that towards the companyt of the flat a sum of Rs.2221.10 was deposited on 25th March, 1968.
This evidence companypled with the admitted position that the last payment was made by the Respondent Plaintiff on 2nd December 1965 and the evidence of Respondents husband set out above clearly established that the Respondent Plaintiff had number performed their obligation and had number made all payments as was required to be done under the Agreement.
In cross examination he is asked whether he can tell the name of the persons who had deposited the amounts.
8108/7 paisa with interest thereon in 7 yearly installments to the Government.
5,000/ and arrears of rent due to the Government.
Rs,.558.00 On 17.6.1963 6.
14 of 1968 for specific performance of the Agreement dated 22nd June, 1959.
Rs.9.00 On 30.2.1959 4.
This included number just the sum of Rs.8108/ due towards the companyts of the blocks and interest thereon but also the arrears of rent.
In spite of the clear evidence on record to show that the Respondent Plaintiff had number performed their part of the Agreement, the trial companyrt decreed the suit on 30th of September, 1978.
Also the Respondent was put in possession of block 67B. It is clear that the transfer of ownership right companyld only take place when the said Sunder Singh became the owner.
Sunder Singh died on 20th October, 1964.
He was survived by his wife Gurnam Kaur and the present Appellants.
Shri Watel in his testimony has stated that the said agreement was drafted at the instance of Sunder Singh and plaintiff.
328 of 1965 for a permanent injunction against Gurnam Kaur restraining her from disposing of the property.
Rs.101.90 On 30.2.1959 2.
This Agreement provided that the companyt of the plot was Rs.
In this companytext the question of payments m ade the Government under the Agreement was a vital aspect.
8080/ , out of which a sum of Rs.1616/ had already been received on 22nd June, 1959.
The husband of the Respondent was examined as PW5.
Thus the Respondent was to pay a sum of Rs.
However, an Issue was raised as to whether or number the Agreement companyld be specifically performed.
Thereafter on 1st June, 1968, the Respondent filed a Suit No.
3,000/ is being paid to Sunder Singh to enable him to make payment of the first installment to the Government and that this amount was to be treated as a loan to Sunder Singh.
The fact that the Government did number forfeit would number have any bearing on the factum of Respondent number having performed her obligations under the Agreement.
Rs.2.00 On 25.3.1968 6.
Rs.2,237.10 On 25.3.1968 7.
Rs.55.80 On.
Rs.20.00 On 25.3.1968 9.Rs.922.05 On 25.3.1987 Therefore, number for the first time the Respondent is claiming that some payments had been made by her in 1968 and 1987.
2221.10 has been paid by the Appellant it would be most inequitable to direct transfer of Block 67A by granting specific performance.
Both the trial companyrt and the High Court have clearly erred in law and on facts by granting specific performance to the Respondent Plaintiff and directing transfer of Block 67A in her favor.
In answering this Issue it would have been necessary for the Court to see number just readiness and willingness, at all stages, but also whether in fact the Respondent Plaintiff had performed her part of the to Agreement.
Rs.3,158.39 On 2.12.1965 Total Rs.8,239.39 B PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS RENT WATER CHARGES INTEREST, GROUND RENT ETC.
346 of 1993.
Further on the agreement says that for the aforesaid reasons Sunder Singh wanted to associate someone with him for the purchase of the said quarter in order to be able to companytinue to occupy the same and own at least a part of the said property.
The trial Court granted specific performance number only in respect of Block 67B but also for 67A. The heirs of Sunder Singh then filed Regular First Appeal No.123 of 1981 in the Delhi High Court.
It was further stipulated in the agreement that respondent was eager and willing to companyperate with Sunder Singh and purchase half of the premises, namely, M/67 B with its kitchen, bath, lavatory and a companymon wall between m/67 A and M/67 B at a price of Rs.5000/ and arrears of rent due in respect of the property to be paid to the Government in the account of Sunder Singh in cash.
Rs.600.00 On 14.5.1963 5.
However in para 6 of the written statement they made a categoric statement that after the death of Sunder Singh the Respondent had number paid any amounts to the Government but that the wife, Gurnam Kaur, had deposited all the amounts with the Government.
The said agreement specifically states that the said Sunder Singh was number in a position to pay the purchase price of the said quarter or the first instalment thereof and after Sunder Singh received the final demand numberice for payment of the first instalment to the Government with the warning that in case of number payment the quarter would number be transferred to him with the companysequence that it will be auctioned and sold to a third party.
The portion of the impugned Judgment dealing with this aspect reads as follows The main ground urged by the learned companynsel for the appellant Shri R.L. Tandon before us was that on a proper companysideration of the agreement respondent plaintiff failed to perform her part of the agreement and was number entitled to invoke the provisions of Specific Relief Act in her favour.
On behalf of the Respondent Plaintiff one S.B. Lal, Upper Division Clerk of the Government was examined as PW 4.
He states that the amount was deposited in the name of the same person in whose favour the sale was to take place.
Sunder Singh did number have the money to make payment to the Government.
In 1955 the Government, under the policy of rehabilitation allotted to him block numbers 67 A and 67 B in Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110017.
N. Variava, J. This Appeal is against the Judgment dated 27th April, 1993 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi.
