ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. GURMEL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the plaintiff. Vide CS(OS) No.1064/2005, filed on August 12, 2005, he sought specific performance of an agreement to sell dated February 28, 2004 and cancellation of a sale deed April 21, 2004. THE subject matter of the agreement to sell is Flat No.A-8C, DDA Flats, Munirka, New Delhi, 110067.

(2.) AS per the written statement filed, the plaintiff mediated for sale of the flat in question to be made by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2 and to enable defendant No.2 to obtain a loan from defendant No.3 bank got typed an agreement to sell with defendant No.1 as the seller and defendant No.2 as the purchaser. He thereafter played a trick. He had received money from the husband of defendant No.2 to sell his flat to the husband of defendant No.2 and informing that he could not sell the flat as it was mortgaged, offered to return the money by making payment to defendant No.1, to be adjusted to the account of defendant No.2. Pertaining to the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 it is stated that the plaintiff was instrumental in getting the sale deed registered, evidenced by the fact that his employee Mr.Ramesh had purchased the necessary stamp papers and was also a witness to the conveyance deed. Pleading that the plaintiff is a Chartered Accountant, it is pleaded in the written statement that plaintiff got a loan sanctioned from defendant No.3 bank, when defendant No.2 purchased the property and simultaneously mortgaged the flat to the bank.

(3.) TILL when the impugned order was passed on March 27, 2012, the appellant has not even commenced leading evidence. Appellant's suit has been dismissed as a consequence of the right to lead evidence being closed.