DILIP KUMAR BHARGAVA Vs. URMILA DEVI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 7.1.2011 passed by the trial court which has dismissed the suit for recovery of the advance payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the Appellant/Plaintiff to the Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 1 given under an Agreement to Sell dated 12.5.2006 with respect to the suit property bearing No. F-223, Mangal Bazaar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. The Appellant/Plaintiff also in the suit had claimed Rs. 6 lacs as damages /mesne profits. Respondents No. 2 and 3/Defendants No. 2 and 3 did not appear in the suit and hence were proceeded ex parte.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant, in appeal, confines his prayer only to the return of the advance amount paid of Rs. 10 lacs. Interest is also prayed inasmuch as the Respondent No. 1 has enjoyed the benefit of a sum of Rs. 10 lacs from the year 2006.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant relies upon the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Dass, 1963 AIR(SC) 1405 and more particularly its paras 8,10,15 and 16 which read as under: