BADAN LAL(SH.) Vs. RAJESH GULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant claims to be aggrieved by a judgment and decree dated 09.08.2012 by which the learned Single Judge invoked the power under Order XII Rule 6, CPC and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff (respondent in the present case) for Rs.24 lakhs with interest.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff/respondent in the present case claimed a decree for Rs.24 lakhs with interest, stating that he and the defendant had friendly and cordial relationship. The plaintiff in this case was a real estate businessman, and according to the suit averments, the defendant approached the plaintiff for financial assistance. The plaintiff advanced a personal loan to the extent of Rs.24 lakhs through Pay Order dated 15.12.2007 issued by the Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC). The plaintiff further averred that despite repeated requests and reminders, the appellant did not return the amount which constrained him to get a legal notice issued on 10.08.2009. Despite this, the defendant/appellant defaulted in payment. Ultimately, the suit was filed.

(3.) The appellant/plaintiff in the present case contended in his defence that the amount of Rs. 24 lakhs received by him was towards part consideration for purchase of some agricultural land being Khasra nos. 4-8, 13-19/1, 24 and 25 out of Mustil No. 3, measuring 12 acres in the revenue estate of Village Daulatpur, Delhi. The appellant also submitted that the total consideration agreed was Rs.2,50,00,000/- per acre, and that the agreement in the form of receipt was recorded on 17.12.2007. The appellant further stated that even though the receipt was not executed by the plaintiff/respondent in the present case, but the plaintiff's representative, one Ashok Kumar, had executed the same on his behalf and paid Rs. 1 lakh as token money to the appellant and other co-sharers. It was contended by the defendant/appellant that since the sale transaction had to be completed within two years but was not done, he forfeited the said amount of Rs. 24 lakhs. The appellant also argued that the plaintiff never disclosed in the suit how he came into contact with him (the appellant), and how the plaintiff could advance such a heavy amount of Rs. 24 lakhs to the appellant.