BAJRANG SAHU Vs. DINESH JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the defendant No.1/appellant herein against the judgment and decree dtd. 22/2/2018 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. A/77/15, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein for specific performance of contract though was dismissed, however, it was ordered that the plaintiff is entitled to receive the earnest money of Rs.10,39,000.00 with interest @ 6% per annum from the defendant No.1/appellant herein.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff, in short, is that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit on the ground that he was a tenant of 04 shops of appellant/defendant and has been a tenant of the suit shops in past, therefore, on 24/6/2009, defendant No.1 entered into a deal for sell of the suit shops with plaintiff. It was agreed to purchase two shops and earnest money of Rs.10,39,000.00 was paid and the total sale consideration was of Rs.15,00,000.00. The plaintiff pleaded that in lieu of such agreement, the possession of the suit shops were handed over to him. Since there was a dispute going on between the family members of the seller, it was agreed by the defendant that only after the resolution of property dispute, sale-deed would be executed in favour of the plaintiff. However, the defendant did not execute the sale deed instead, a notice was served on 10/4/2015 to the plaintiff by the defendant to vacate the possession of four shops with the averments that the plaintiff is tenant of suit shops and possession of the two shops have been parted with third party and sub-tenancy is created without the consent of landlord. In respect of other two shops, the plaintiff averred that an agreement to sell has already been entered into and earnest money has been received but instead of execution of sale deed, the notice of termination of tenancy and vacating the shops was served, which eventually led to filing of civil suit by the respondent/plaintiff.

(3.) In order to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff, he examined himself along with two witnesses namely Raj Kumar Kashyap (PW/2) and Ramdin Jaiswal (PW/3). The defendant has also examined two witnesses to counter the suit of plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge though dismissed the suit for specific performance of contract, however, ordered for return of earnest money with interest, therefore, this appeal by the defendant/seller.