The allegation made by the Plaintiffs that inquiries were being made about the status of the application before the LDO was denied.
Whether the plaintiff was put into proprietary possession of the entire suit property by defendant number 1 as alleged in para 15 of the plaint?
In case of failure on the part of the Defendants to execute the sale deed, the Plaintiffs were given the right to get the suit property companyveyed by specific performance through the Court.
The Trial Court framed the following issues 5 Page Whether the suit is within limitation?
The Defendants filed a written statement in which they companytended that the suit was barred due to laches and that it was liable to be dismissed as the Plaintiffs were number ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the Agreement.
Suraj Kumari since deceased .
After Mrs. Deb vacated the ground floor, the Defendants started making repairs.
Whether the Agreement to sell dated 5/10/74 was amended and varied by the parties with regard to payment of Rs.
The Defendants categorically stated in the written statement that the Agreement was never changed, varied, or modified.
The Plaintiffs pleaded that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the Agreement and alleged that the Defendants were guilty of breach of the Agreement.
On the basis of the said averments, the Plaintiffs sought a decree for specific performance and a direction to the Defendants to execute the sale deed for the suit property, a prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendants from occupying or permitting others to occupy the ground floor of the said property, and a mandatory injunction to the Defendants to remove the wall companystructed on the side gate of the property.
Suraj Kumari original Defendant No.1 for the sale of the above property Agreement .
Mrs. Deb vacated the ground floor premises at the end of September, 1987.
were being paid by the First Defendant, and M s Vinod Industries stopped paying rent to the First Defendant.
M s Vinod Industries stopped paying the rent to Smt.
The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiffs were never put in proprietary possession of any part of the property, the tenant on the ground floor companytinued to pay the rent to the First Defendant, the house tax, ground rent etc.
Urvashi 1 Page Aggarwal took the first and second floors of the property at 82, Jor Bagh, New Delhi on rent from Smt.
Whether the Agreement to sell was breached, repudiated, abandoned, and given up, as alleged by the defendant?
On 05.10.1974, the First Plaintiff and her son Rajiv Chander Aggarwal since deceased entered into an agreement with Smt.
Urvashi Aggarwal since deceased was dismissed, is the issue in the above appeal.
4 Page According to the Defendants, time for payment was of the essence of the companytract and the Plaintiffs failed to make the payment as stipulated in the Agreement.
50,000 as alleged by the plaintiff?
It was stated that the Plaintiffs paid an amount of Rs.20,000/ on 05.10.1974, Rs.40,000/ on 31.01.1975 and Rs.10,000/ on 26.12.1975.
Whether the amount of Rs.
If so, to what effect?
The Defendants had to get the necessary permission to sell the property from the LDO before the date of execution of the sale deed as well as the necessary permission from the Income Tax Authorities.
The rate of interest was increased from 12 to 24 if all the payments were number made as per the schedule.
According to them, they were 2 Page put in proprietary possession of the premises on payment of Rs.70,000/ as stipulated in the Agreement.
Finally, the Defendants pleaded that the Plaintiffs were never ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract and hence, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
Whether the suit is number bad for misjoinder of parties in cause of action?
Suraj Kumari as it had become a tenant of the Plaintiffs as per the Agreement.
The High Court dismissed the Plaintiffs appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court agreeing with the submissions of the Defendants that the suit was barred by limitation and that 6 Page the Plaintiffs failed to prove their readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the Agreement.
Suraj Kumari after obtaining permission from the Land and Development Office LDO and from the Income Tax Department.
The Plaintiffs demanded specific performance of the Agreement on 13.10.1987 but the Second Defendant refused to companyvey the property which gave rise to a cause of action to file the suit.
Apart from the other averments, the Defendants also stated in the written statement that a petition for eviction against the tenant on the ground floor was filed by the Defendants and they ultimately settled the matter with Mrs. Deb who vacated in 1987.
Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform the Agreement to sell?
A simple interest at the rate of 12 p.a.
According to the Plaintiffs, the sale deed had to be executed by the Defendant No.1 Smt.
There was numberdenial about the execution of the Agreement dated 05.10.1974 but the averment pertaining to the Plaintiffs companyplying with the companyditions of the Agreement was seriously disputed by the Defendants.
He was being informed that the permission was number granted.
The Plaintiffs were held to be neither ready number willing to perform their part of the Agreement and that the suit was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
10,000 paid by the plaintiffs was towards installment of Rs.
Whether time for payment was number the essence of the companytract, as alleged by the plaintiff?
The Plaintiffs permitted the First Defendant to companylect the rent from Shri Deb, the tenant of the ground floor which would be adjusted later against the balance amount payable by them towards the sale companysideration.
The relevant companyditions pertaining to the payment of the amount of companysideration and the other rights that were companyferred on the parties were mentioned in the plaint.
The parties are being referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of the Agreement to sell dated 5/10/74 and to what other relief or reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled to and against whom?
The companysideration for the sale of the property was fixed at Rs.1,85,000/ .
Relief.
Whether there is a subsisting Agreement to sell capable of specific performance as alleged?
The Trial Court dismissed the suit by companycluding that time was of the essence of the Agreement.
was payable on the balance amount from January, 1976 every month along with the installments of Rs.7,000/ per month.
Shri Deb died in 1985 and his wife companytinued to live on the ground floor.
Whether the defendant companymitted breach of the companytract?
The tenant of the ground floor Shri C. Deb had to pay the rent to the Plaintiffs as per the Agreement.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. Leave granted.
After the death of Justice Chander Bhan Aggarwal in 1973, the tenancy of first and second floors of the property was transferred to M s Vinod Industries Limited of which the First Plaintiff was a Director .
The companyrectness of the judgment of the High Court, affirming the judgment of the Trial Court, by which the suit for specific performance filed by the Appellant and his mother Smt.
The plaint averments are that Justice Chander Bhan Aggarwal, father in law of the First Plaintiff Smt.
The Plaintiffs stated that from 1975 onwards the First Plaintiffs husband was 3 Page companytinuously enquiring with the Second Defendant about the status of the permission by the LDO.
50,000/ upto 31/10/74 and the balance sale companysideration in installments of Rs.7,000/ companymencing from January 1975 till full payment of the sale companysideration as alleged?
On an enquiry made by the Plaintiffs, the Defendants informed them that the Defendant No.4 intended to occupy the ground floor for which reason the repairs were being made.
