KRITI KOHLI Vs. HARI NAND

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 11.11.2011 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of double the amount of advance price paid i.e. a total of ' 8 lacs alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Trial Court has dismissed the suit as it held that the agreement to sell was not entered into with the appellant/plaintiff, but with her mother-Smt. Manju Kohli, and thus only Mrs. Manju Kohli could have been the plaintiff and not the present plaintiff-Ms. Kriti Kohli.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff as the proposed buyer and the respondent/defendant as the proposed seller entered into an agreement to purchase/sell the suit property bearing No.32A, Jain Nagar Extension, Delhi, admeasuring 333 sq. yds. The total sale price was fixed at ' 45,95,400/-, and out of which amount, the appellant/plaintiff paid a sum of ' 2 lacs on 12.2.2007, when the agreement to sell/earnest money receipt was entered into between the parties, and, another sum of ' 2 lacs was paid on 20.2.2007, and to evidence which an endorsement was made on the back of the earnest money receipt/agreement to sell dated 12.2.2007. The appellant/plaintiff pleaded that it transpired subsequently that the respondent/defendant was not the owner of the suit property and therefore she asked for return of the advance paid alongwith interest, which having been refused the subject suit came to be filed.

(3.) AS already stated, trial Court has dismissed the suit by arriving at a finding that the agreement was not entered into by the respondent/defendant with the appellant/plaintiff, but with Smt. Manju Kohli and who was not the plaintiff. The relevant issues were issue Nos.4 and 5 and with respect to which the trial Court has made the following observations:-