MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA Vs. SAPNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed for recovery of Rs 60 lakh. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1, who is the wife of defendant No. 2, agreed to sell her land comprised in Mauza Siwana, Siraska, Tehsil Sohana, District Gurgaon, Haryana to him for a consideration of Rs.54 lakh and received that much amount by way of various cheques, detailed in para 5 of the plaint. An agreement dated 01.07.2008 was executed between the parties in this regard. Defendant No. 1 is alleged to have been executed a receipt, confirming the payment received from the plaintiff. It is further alleged that later on defendant No. 1 backed out of the agreement and refused to execute the sale document in favour of the plaintiff. She agreed to return the amount received from the plaintiff along with Rs 6 lakh as compensation and for this purpose, defendants issued two cheques of Rs 30 lakh each from their joint account and the agreement dated 01.07.2008 was returned to them along with original receipt. The cheques, when presented to the bank, were dishonoured with the endorsement "funds insufficient". The plaintiff has now claimed that amount of the aforesaid two cheques in the present suit filed under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) In the application for leave to defend, the defendants have alleged that no payment was ever made by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 as consideration for a sale of the agriculture land on defendant No. 1 and there is no privity of contract between the parties to the suit. Defendant No. 1 has denied having entered into any sale agreement with the plaintiff in respect of the agricultural land owned by her. It is alleged that one Karambir Singh, cousin of defendant No. 2, is a friend of the plaintiff, who is a contractor in CPWD and HUDA. It is alleged that both the plaintiff and Karambir Singh represented to the defendants that they would be made Government contractor if they arranged Rs 50-60 lakh because bank transaction is required to be shown for registration as Government contractor. The defendants arranged Rs 60 lakh in March, 2008 and paid that amount to the plaintiff in cash through Karambir Singh. They promised to repay the said amount within 2-3 months by way of cheques. It is further alleged that the defendants opened a joint account in the bank at the instance of the plaintiff and Karambir Singh, who obtained four blank cheques from them in June, 2008 on the pretext that those cheques would be required for giving security in CPWD and HUDA. It is further alleged that the plaintiff in connivance with Karambir Singh, issued those cheques in the name of defendant No. 1, assuring them that this was repayment of the amount advanced by the defendants to the plaintiff through Karambir Singh for showing transaction in the bank.

(3.) In M/s Mechalec Engineers and Manufactures v. M/s Basic Equipment Corporation, 1977 1 SCR 1060, the Supreme Court set out the following principles:-