SAROJ BALA YADAV Vs. VED PRAKASH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 4th February, 2017 by which the suit filed by the Appellant was dismissed. Notice was issued initially in the Appeal upon which Respondent's counsel appeared and accepted notice on 25th August 2017. Subsequently the Respondent stopped appearing. On 8th March 2018, fresh notice was issued Dasti to the Respondent. Service was effected, as recorded in order dated 4th April 2018. Again notice was issued through the Process Server of the High court. Despite service, none has appeared and the matter has been heard.

(2.) Briefly, the case of the Appellant/Plaintiff (hereinafter 'Plaintiff') is that she entered into an agreement to sell dated 5th March, 2004 in respect of Plot bearing no.43, Krishan Kunj Colony, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092, admeasuring 150 sq. yards (approximately) with the whole of the structure built thereon i.e. not including three shops upto the extent of ceiling level bearing private Nos. l, 2 & 3 (hereinafter the 'Suit Property'). As per the agreement with the Respondent/Defendant (hereinafter 'Defendant'), it is the Plaintiff's case that Rs.9 Lakhs was paid in cash to the Defendant. However, despite receiving the said payment and the Plaintiff trying to finalize the sale transaction, the Defendant did not honour his commitments. The Plaintiff further submits that she had adequate funds to pay the remaining sale consideration. However, the Defendant avoided performing his obligations. Various reminders were given to the Defendant for execution of the sale deed, however, to no avail. Finally, the Plaintiff realised on 9th May, 2005 that the Defendant was planning to sell the property to a third party and accordingly the present suit was filed seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) In the Trial Court, the defence of the Defendant was that the agreement to sell was a forged and fabricated document and that fraud was played upon the Defendant and the Defendant also denied the receipt of the amount of Rs.9 Lakhs. The following issues were framed in the matter on 15th September, 2011: