SUNITA Vs. ASHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 16.12.2002 dismissing the suit for recovery of RS.4.5 lacs filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant. The suit for recovery was filed claiming that the amount of RS.4.5 lacs was the balance sale consideration with respect to a plot of 200 sq. yds forming part of the 600 sq. yds property bearing no. RZ-483/13B, Tughalkabad Extension, New Delhi, which was sold by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent/defendant.

(2.) THE facts of the case as pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff were that the appellant/plaintiff had agreed to sell the suit property to the respondent/defendant for a total sum of RS. 6 lacs and of which, a sum of RS. 1.5 lacs was paid when the documents were executed on 31.5.1994. In the plaint, it was stated that the balance amount would be paid by the respondent/defendant within a period of six months after execution of the documents. Though the plaint is silent as to handing over of possession of the suit property to the respondent/defendant, subsequently in the evidence of the appellant/plaintiff it has been admitted that possession of the suit property was handed over to the respondent/defendant at the time of execution of the documents. The appellant/plaintiff in the plaint further pleaded that the respondent/defendant got prepared the documents only at RS.1.5 lacs to avoid taxes of the suit property. It was further pleaded that the appellant had objected to the contents of the documents and showed her annoyance to the respondent/defendant and that she would not agree to mention of a lesser consideration in the documents. The plaint is however silent as to when the appellant/plaintiff came to know of the mention of lesser consideration of RS.1.5 lacs instead of RS. 6 lacs and when she objected to the respondent/plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff was not given any copies of the documents by the respondent/defendant. There is mention in the plaint of certain alleged attempts of the respondent/defendant to grab the remaining portion of 400 sq. yds which was not sold to the respondent/defendant and a criminal case which arose therefrom. In terms of the aforesaid facts, the subject suit came to be filed for recovery of the balance price of RS.4.5 lacs.

(3.) THE only issue which has been urged before this Court is as to whether the complete price of RS. 6 lacs was paid to the appellant/plaintiff and whether an amount of RS. 4.5 lacs still remains due and payable to the appellant/plaintiff by the respondent/defendant.