PRAKASH KAUR Vs. K G RINGSHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration that letter dated 20.11.1984 (Annexure E) is null and void and the agreement dated 10.11.1979 between the parties is still operative and binding on the parties.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff was formerly residing at Bombay and had entered into an agreement on 10.11.1979 with the defendant whereby a flat in the multi-storeyed building proposed to be constructed at Chakla Village, Andheri (East), Bombay by the defendant was agreed to be delivered to her on construction for which she had paid a sum of Rs. 3,942.00 to the latter. The plaintiff shifted to Delhi, intimation of it is alleged to have been given to the defendant on 13.1.1982. In August, 1984 by means of registered letter sent to the defendant she complained about the delay caused in the construction and inquired when the flat was likely to be completed and handed over to her and she offered to make further payments, if payable by her, immediately on demand. This was followed by reminder letter dated 12.10.1984 sent by registered A.D. but no reply was received and then a telegram was sent on 26.11.1984. Then a reply dated 20.11.1984, was received by her on or about 30.11.1984 wherein she was informed that the amount of Rs. 3,942.00 paid by her at the time of signing of the agreement had been refunded to her through her son Shri Harnam Singh who had collected the amount under her instructions in the presence of her broker Mr. Anjani Mishra; and now there was no agreement subsisting between the parties and the agreement dated 10.11.1979 had been mutually cancelled.

(3.) She has denied that her son had received the refund of Rs. 3,942.00 from the defendant or he was authorised by her to do so. These allegations are false and baseless. In fact the defendant had commenced the construction belatedly and now when the value of the flat had increased he has become dishonest and wants to avoid the agreement on one pretext or the other. This conduct of the defendant is dishonest and he wanted to cheat and defraud the plaintiff. Accordingly the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the following relief: