MAHAVIR SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the defendant claimed to the owner of plot of land measuring 208 sq. yards situated on Khasra No.53/11/1, Phirni Road, Village Mundka, Delhi-110 041 and agreed to sell the same to him for a total sale consideration of Rs.56,50,000/-. A receipt-cum-agreement to sell is alleged to have been executed between the parties in this regard on 17.3.2011. It is also the case of the plaintiff that that a sum of Rs.26,50,000/- was paid to the defendant at the time of execution of the agreement and the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- was agreed to be paid within three months from the date of the agreement. It is further alleged that the parties had also agreed that the defendant would deliver the vacant possession along with the original title documents at the time of execution of the sale deed and if he failed to do so, he would pay double of the earnest money i.e. Rs.53 lac to the plaintiff. It has also been alleged in para 6 of the plaint that the plaintiff made payment of Rs.10 lac to the defendant on 7.5.2011 and on 10.9.2011, the plaintiff paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.20 lac. This payment is alleged to have been made partly in cash and partly by cheque, the cash component being Rs.15 lac and the cheque component being Rs.5 lac. Since according to the plaintiff, the defendant has not honoured the agreement with him, a decree for specific performance has been sought. An alternative relief of recovery of Rs.83 lac has also been claimed along with interest.

(2.) THE defendant has contested the suit and has denied having executed any agreement to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. THE case of the defendant, as disclosed in the written statement is that he had taken a loan of Rs.5 lac from the plaintiff and in reply to the notice dated 5.3.2012, he sent a cheque of Rs.5 lac along with receipt dated 30.3.2012 and that cheque was encashed by the plaintiff. THE defendant has denied having received any amount other than the aforesaid cheque of Rs.5 lac from the plaintiff. It is also alleged by the defendant that he has already sold the suit property to one Mr. Subhash Kumar Bansal on 13.3.2012 vide documents such as agreement to sell and Power of Attorney etc. executed in his favour and has also transferred possession of the property to him.

(3.) THOUGH the plaintiff claimed to have paid Rs.26,50,000/- to the defendant in cash on 17.3.2011, the plaint does not disclose the source from which such a huge amount was paid by the plaintiff. No statement of any bank account has been filed by the plaintiff to show that he had that much amount in his bank on or around 17.3.2011. It is also not the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had borrowed the aforesaid amount for paying the same to the defendant. It would be pertinent to mention herein that giving or taking the loan exceeding Rs.20,000/- in cash is prohibited under Section 269 of the Income Tax Act and a person acting in contravention of the aforesaid statutory provision is liable to be prosecuted and punished. In any case, it is not the case in the plaint that the plaintiff had borrowed the amount, which he claims to have paid to the defendant on 17.3.2011. The plaintiff also claims to have paid Rs.10 lac to the defendant on 7.5.2011. Again there is no explanation in the plaint as to what was the source form which this amount was paid. Again, no bank statement has been filed by the plaintiff to show that he had Rs.10 lac with him in a bank account or had withdrawn the said amount from any bank account. It is also not the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that the aforesaid sum of Rs.10 lac was borrowed by him from someone. The plaintiff further claims to have paid Rs.15 lac in cash. Again, the plaint does not disclose the source from which the cash payment of Rs.15 lac was made to the defendant. Again, the plaint does not disclose the source from which the cash payment of Rs.15 lac was made to the defendant. No bank statement has been filed to show that the plaintiff had Rs.15 lac in his bank account on or around 10.9.2011 and he had withdrawn the said amount from the bank account. There is no averment in the plaint that the aforesaid amount of Rs.15 lac was borrowed by the plaintiff from someone.