SIDHARTHA TAYAL Vs. DINESH GOEL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/defendant has assailed the judgment dated 19.5.2016 passed by the learned trial court dismissing his suit for recovery of Rs.10,00,000.00 instituted against the respondents/defendants on the ground that he had failed to fulfil the terms of the Agreement to Sell dated 5.4.2010 in respect of a commercial space bearing No.S-15, Second Floor, Cross River Mall, Karkardooma, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the shop') and therefore, he is entitled to claim double of the earnest money from them.

(2.) A brief recapitulation of the relevant facts of the case is necessary. The appellant/plaintiff has instituted a suit for recovery against the respondents/defendants, through his father, Shri Sham Tayal, described as his power of attorney holder, stating inter alia that on 5.4.2010, he had entered into an agreement with the respondents/defendants through his father, for purchasing the shop. At that time, the respondents/defendants had asserted that they were the absolute owners of the shop. The deal was finalized for a sum of Rs.36,21,000.00. At the time of executing the Agreement to Sell, earnest money of Rs.5,00,000.00 was paid in cash to the respondents/defendants and it was agreed that the balance sale consideration would be paid by the appellant/plaintiff on or before 4.6.2010, at the time of execution and registration of the sale documents, contemporaneous to the delivery of the shop.

(3.) The appellant/plaintiff claimed that after entering into the aforesaid agreement, the intentions of the respondents/defendants became mala fide and they started putting off the matter. On 4.6.2010, the date by which the sale documents were to be executed and registered, the appellant/plaintiff was ready with the balance amount but the respondents/defendants had sought more time on the ground that they were in the process of obtaining necessary sale permission from the competent authorities. After waiting for some time, on 16.2011, the appellant/plaintiff got a legal notice served on the respondents/defendants calling upon them to execute the agreement to sell, but they gave a reply dated 28.2011, refuting the contents of the said notice. On receiving a reply from the respondents/defendants, alleging that they had surrendered possession of the suit premises with a mala fide intention and deliberately committed breach of the terms and conditions of the Agreement to Sell dated 5.4.2010 for which they were liable to pay double the earnest money, the appellant/plaintiff instituted the present suit on 21.2013, praying inter alia for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,00,000.00 along with interest @ 18% p.a.