INDIRA RAI Vs. SHRI BIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for recovery of Rs 13,50,000/-. It has been alleged in the plaint that in the year 1997, the defendant and his brother-in-law Joginder Singh approached the plaintiff and asked her whether she was interested in purchasing their land. They took her to village Manger in Faridabad and showed agriculture land comprised in Khasra Nos. 198/12, 198/13, 198/14, 198/17, 198/18/1, 198/18/2, 198/19, 198/22/1, 198/22/2, 198/22/3, 198/23, 198/24 owned by the defendant as well as some land by Joginder Singh. The plaintiff agreed to buy the said land from the defendant and about one acre of land from Joginder Singh. An Agreement to Sell dated 30th September, 1997 was signed between the plaintiff and the defendant and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs 13,50,000/- to the defendant, being the sale consideration for the land. The defendant agreed to hand over the vacant possession of the land to the plaintiff by 31st May, 1998. The sale deed was to be executed within a month of handing over the possession. Joginder Singh executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the land sold by him to her. The defendant, however, failed to hand over the possession of the land, agreed to be sold by him to the plaintiff and to execute the necessary sale deed in her favour. The plaintiff, therefore, decided to rescind the agreement and asked the defendant to refund the sale consideration paid by him. Since the defendant has failed to refund the sale consideration, she has now sought the sum of Rs 13,50,000/- from him alongwith interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the agreement up to the date of filing of the suit, making a total sum of Rs 25,75,129/-.

(2.) The defendant has contested the suit. He has taken preliminary objections that the suit is barred by limitation and Delhi Court has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter on merits. The defendant has denied having executed any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and has claimed that the agreement, setup by the plaintiff, is a forged document. He has also denied having received any amount from the plaintiff and has also alleged that he is not the owner of the land, described in the agreement setup by the plaintiff.

(3.) In her replication, the plaintiff has not disputed the averment of the defendant that he is not the owner of the land subject matter of the agreement, pleaded by her.