WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE PRESENT SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 17.12.2016.

IN THE COURT OF XXXXXXX; LD. DISTRICT JUDGE, DIST. NORTH-WEST; ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.

CS DJ NO.: XXXXXXX OF 2017.

IN THE MATTER OF:

XXXXXXX : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

XXXXXXX : DEFENDANTS

N.D.O.H.: XXXX

INDEX

S.No.	PARTICULARS	PAGE NO.
1.	WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE PRESENT SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 17.12.2016.

PLACE: DELHI FILED BY

DATED:- 05.11.2024

XXXXXXX

XXXXXXX,

XXXXXXX

Mob.No.XXXXXXX

Email: XXXXXXX

IN THE COURT OF XXXXXXX; LD. DISTRICT JUDGE, DIST. NORTH-WEST; ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.

CS DJ NO.: XXXXXXX OF 2017.

IN THE MATTER OF:

XXXXXXX : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

XXXXXXX : DEFENDANTS

N.D.O.H.: 06.11.2024

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE PRESENT SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 17.12.2016.

MOST RESPECFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the plaintiff and the Defendants entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 17.12.2016 for the sale of the property located at XXXXXXX(hereinafter "the Suit Property"). The agreement was a legally binding contract executed between the parties in good faith, with the plaintiff as the purchaser and the defendants as joint owners and sellers of the Suit Property.

2. That the total sale consideration agreed upon was ₹38,50,000. As part of the agreement, the plaintiff paid a token advance amount of ₹7,00,000 as earnest money. The agreement specifically stipulated that the remaining balance of ₹31,50,000 was due to be paid on or before 16.04.2017. Upon receipt of this balance, the defendants were bound to execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff and hand over possession along with the original chain of property documents.

3. That on 15.04.2017 and 16.04.2017, as stipulated, the plaintiff visited the Suit Property with the intent to complete the payment and receive the documents and Plaintiff came to give the full and final payment and see the actual position of property and asked to show the Original documents of property then the Defendants did not allow the same and Plaintiff conveyed the same to property dealer and then dealer came to defendant and the Defendants asked for 15 days more time to shift the articles from the property and asked to extend the 15 days' time for execution of the sale documents of the property and also asked one or two days' time to show the Original property documents. The plaintiff, in good faith, consented to this extension, maintaining her willingness to perform her part of the contract.

4. That the plaintiff was shocked and surprised, when the defendants sent a letter dated 22.04.2017, alleging a breach on the part of plaintiff and claiming forfeiture of the earnest money. The plaintiff promptly responded by sending a legal notice on 05.05.2017, confirming her readiness to complete the transaction and requesting the defendants to comply with the terms of the agreement, in response to the same defendants sent false and frivolous reply to the notice. Despite her attempts, including booking an appointment with the registrar, the defendants failed to perform their obligations. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance.

5. That the plaintiff has unequivocally demonstrated her readiness and willingness to perform her obligations under the agreement. She had the necessary funds secured well before the due date and was prepared to finalize the transaction as per the terms. Her actions, including obtaining demand drafts and repeatedly communicating with the defendants, evidence her intention to fulfill her contractual duties.

6. In N.P. Thirugnanam v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, (1995) 5 SCC 115: The Supreme Court emphasized that readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff are essential for specific performance. The court held that “the conduct of the plaintiff must show his continuous readiness and willingness to complete the transaction.” In the present case, the plaintiff’s timely actions and communication clearly satisfy this requirement.

7. In Syed Dastagir v. T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty, (1999) 6 SCC 337: The Court observed that "readiness" implies the capacity to perform, while "willingness" implies the intention to perform. The plaintiff's financial arrangements and immediate response to the defendants’ breach underscore both her readiness and willingness.

8. Despite the adherence of the plaintiff to the agreement terms, the defendants’ conduct reveals a clear intention to evade their obligations. The letter dated 22.04.2017 of the defendants, issued shortly after seeking an extension, indicates bad faith and an attempt to unjustly enrich themselves by forfeiting the plaintiff’s earnest money. This act violates the spirit of contractual obligations and exhibits the defendants’ lack of bona fides.

9. In K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan, (1997) 3 SCC 1: The Supreme Court held that the discretion of specific performance should be exercised in favor of a plaintiff who shows willingness and bona fide adherence to contract terms. This case affirms that where the defendant shows a deliberate disregard for contract terms, courts are justified in enforcing specific performance.

10. In Surjit Kaur v. Naurata Singh, 2000 (2) SCC 217: The Court condemned attempts by sellers to unfairly retain earnest money and avoid performance, affirming that the remedy of specific performance is an equitable relief for an aggrieved buyer.

11. That the defendants’ claim of forfeiting the earnest money lacks merit. The plaintiff did not breach any terms of the agreement. Instead, the defendants unilaterally declared forfeiture despite the plaintiff’s compliance and willingness to complete the sale. The forfeiture action of defendants were thus unjustified and in breach of the contract’s fundamental principles.

12. In Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co., AIR 1954 SC 44: This case emphasizes that forfeiture of earnest money is only justified when a purchaser willfully refuses to perform. Here, the plaintiff has displayed continuous compliance, making the defendants’ forfeiture unlawful.

13. In Maula Bux v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 554: The Supreme Court observed that forfeiture clauses must be strictly construed and cannot be invoked arbitrarily. The plaintiff’s willingness and actions demonstrate her adherence to the contract, rendering the forfeiture legally unsound.

14. That the plaintiff invokes Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which provides that a contract for sale of immovable property can be specifically enforced as monetary damages are often inadequate to compensate for the loss of unique property interests. The reliance on the Suit Property of the plaintiff as her chosen residence establishes her unique interest and strengthens her claim for specific performance.

15. That given the adherence and willingness of the plaintiff to the agreement and her readiness to complete the transaction, this Hon'ble Court is empowered to exercise discretion in favor of specific performance. Equity and fairness demand that the defendants fulfil their part of the bargain rather than wrongfully forfeit the plaintiff's earnest money and retain possession of the Suit Property.

16. In Lachman Das v. Jagat Ram, AIR 2007 SC 1206: The Court reinforced that equity favors specific performance when the buyer has adhered to the contract, especially in cases where the defendants act in bad faith.

17. In Ram Awadh (Dead) v. Achhaibar Dubey, (2000) 2 SCC 428: This ruling reiterates that courts lean toward enforcing specific performance in property transactions, especially where the plaintiff has substantially performed and the defendants are attempting to renege without justification.

18. That the actions of the defendants not only constitute a breach of contract but also show an intentional attempt to avoid their obligations, despite the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform its of obligation of the agreement. The balance of equity, as demonstrated, lies in favor of the plaintiff, who has diligently complied with all aspects of the contract. Therefore, a decree of specific performance, along with the other reliefs sought, should be granted to uphold justice and fairness in this matter.

In light of the aforementioned facts and submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

a) A decree directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff with respect to the Suit Property and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession as per the agreement dated 17.12.2016.

b) An order directing the defendants to hand over the original property ownership documents to the plaintiff as agreed.

c) A decree for ₹5,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and distress suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendants' wrongful actions and breach of contract.

d) An award of costs incurred in the present suit to the plaintiff, owing to the defendants' failure to honor their obligations.

d) Any other relief deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court to ensure justice in favor of the plaintiff.