Case Note & Summary
The suit was filed by Jayesh Gopaldas Sampat, his mother, and his wife (plaintiffs) against Paresh Satyendra Vohra and others (defendants) for specific performance of a flat purchase agreement. The defendants were the owners of a property in Borivali, Mumbai, where a building called Padmalaya stood. The plaintiffs were tenants in flat No.4 on the ground floor. The defendants entered into a development agreement with the 5th defendant (a developer firm) for demolition and reconstruction. After negotiations, the tenancy was transferred to Sameer Sampat (brother of the 1st plaintiff), and an agreement was executed on 27th February 2005 for Sameer to get a flat. Subsequently, on 24th September 2006, a registered flat purchase agreement was executed between the plaintiffs and the 5th defendant for flat No.502 on the fifth floor of the new building, with a carpet area of about 1160 sq. ft. and car parking space, for a total consideration of Rs.29,35,000/-. The consideration was payable in two installments: Rs.13,35,500/- on execution (receipt admitted in the agreement) and the balance on delivery of possession. The plaintiffs paid the entire consideration, but the defendants failed to execute the sale deed and deliver possession. The suit was listed for exparte decree as the defendants were served but did not file a written statement. The court heard the plaintiffs' advocate and examined the affidavit of documents and examination-in-chief of the 1st plaintiff, who confirmed the facts. The court found that the agreement was valid, registered, and the plaintiffs had performed their part. The defendants' failure to execute the sale deed despite full payment entitled the plaintiffs to specific performance. The court decreed the suit, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed and deliver possession of flat No.502 and car parking space No.11 within three months, failing which the plaintiffs could have the deed executed through the court. The defendants were also ordered to pay costs.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16 - Specific Performance of Contract - Registered Agreement for Sale - The plaintiffs sought specific performance of a flat purchase agreement dated 24th September 2006. The defendants, owners and developers, failed to execute the sale deed despite receiving full consideration. The court held that the agreement was valid, registered, and the plaintiffs had performed their part. Since no written statement was filed and defendants were absent, the court decreed specific performance in favour of the plaintiffs. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 10 - Exparte Decree - Consequences of Non-Filing of Written Statement - The defendants were served but did not file a written statement. The court proceeded exparte and decreed the suit. The court noted that the plaintiffs' evidence was uncontroverted and the documents proved the agreement and payment. (Paras 1-2, 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of specific performance of a flat purchase agreement when the defendants failed to execute the sale deed despite receiving full consideration and no written statement was filed.
Final Decision
The suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the plaint. The defendants are directed to execute the sale deed and deliver possession of flat No.502 and car parking space No.11 within three months. In default, the plaintiffs may have the sale deed executed through the court. The defendants shall pay costs of the suit.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- exparte decree
- registered agreement for sale
- consideration paid
- developer's obligation
- Section 16 Specific Relief Act
- 1963
