MAHENDERA VERMA Vs. SURESH T. KILACHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 40 lacs. The defendant had entered appearance and filed his written statement. The plaintiff led his evidence PW1 and PW2 and the witnesses were cross-examined by the defendant. However, before the defendant could lead his evidence, he has expired. His legal heirs have been impleaded. The legal heirs were served through publication. None had appeared for them and hence, they had been proceeded ex parte.

(2.) ARGUMENTS were heard and judgment was reserved. The plaintiff was given an opportunity to file his written submissions. No written submissions have been filed.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the plaintiff through his counsel sent a legal notice dated 13.07.2007 to the defendant calling upon him to complete the process of registration of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or to refund the earnest money of Rs. 20 lacs. The defendant through his counsel sent a reply on 30.07.2007 stating that the balance sale consideration was payable by the plaintiff within a period of three months and upon failure of the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration, the defendant had forfeited the earnest money and in June 2007 had sold the suit premises in favour of a third party. The plaintiff claims that the defence of the defendant as stated in the reply to the legal notice is fraudulent and hence, has filed the present suit seeking recovery of Rs. 40 lacs inasmuch as per the terms and conditions of the oral agreement to sell, if the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, he was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 40 lacs to the plaintiff.