SANGEETA DALMIA Vs. RAJINDER KAUR BEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.13113/11 in RFA No.361/2011 This is an application for extension of time for deposit of Court fee. Court fee has already been deposited. The application is disposed of as having become infructuous. CM No.13114/11(exemption) in RFA No.361/2011 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. CM No.13253/2011(exemption) in RFA No.364/2011 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. + RFA No.361/2011 & RFA No.364/2011 with CM No.13252/2011(stay) in RFA No.364/2011 Both these appeals can be heard and disposed of together as they are between the same parties and they arise from more or less, common facts. Whereas RFA No.364/11 challenges the judgment of the Trial Court dated 19.3.2011 which decreed the respondents'/plaintiffs' suit for possession and mesne profits against the appellant, RFA No.361/2011 is the appeal of the appellant/plaintiff in the other suit in which recovery of money was claimed by the appellant, being double the amount of the price paid, on account of the breach committed of the agreement to sell by the defendants therein, (and who are the respondents in both the appeals) and which has been only partly decreed only for refund of the advance price paid with interest and not for double of the advance price. I may note that reference to the respondents would include Mr.I.S.Bedi, (who is the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) and with whom the subject agreement to sell was entered into.

(2.) THE facts of the cases are that the appellant Smt. Sangita Dalmia entered into an agreement to sell with late Sh. I.S.Bedi with respect to the property admeasuring 1200 square yards having a construction of a boundary wall and one room situated at khasra no. 134, village Siraspur, Delhi. It is stated that an agreement was entered into vide a receipt dated 14.3.1999 for a total consideration of Rs.10,21,000/- and of which the appellant paid a sum of Rs.1,11,000/-. THE appellant also claimed that late Sh. I.S.Bedi handed over possession of the suit property to the appellant on making of the payment of Rs.1,11,000/-. It was the case of the appellant in her suit for recovery of money filed in the Trial Court, being Civil Suit no.227/2010 (subject matter of RFA No.361/2011) that she was misled by late Sh. I.S. Bedi that he was the owner of the property whereas the suit property vested with the gram sabha. THE appellant therefore claimed to have rescinded the contract and sought refund of double the amount of advance paid in the Civil Suit no.227/2010, and which suit has been decreed by the Trial Court not to the extent of double the amount of advance money paid of Rs.1,11,000/-, but to the extent of Rs.1,11,000/- with interest thereon.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued before me that the Khatoni (revenue record) of the year 1990-91 with respect to the suit land, which was filed before the Trial Court and proved as Ex.PW1/D2, established that the property vested in gram sabha and therefore the appellant was not liable to hand over the possession to the respondents. On the aspect of the claim of seeking enhancement of the decree to double the amount of price paid, it was argued that since the appellant had validly rescinded the contract, and since, the respondents had misled the appellant in entering into the agreement to sell, the appellant was entitled to double the amount of advance amount paid. It is also argued that the suit for possession ought not to have been decreed because the suit was on the basis of title and was not a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for claim of specific relief.