RAJ KUMAR GOYAL Vs. VEENA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons stated in the application, exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff was the owner of the subject property. By a Sale Deed dated 28.12.2006 the subject property was sold by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant. The respondent/plaintiff pleads that on the date of the Sale Deed itself i.e. on 28.12.2006, the appellant/defendant executed an undertaking and gave two cheques of Rs. 2,50,000/- each for the balance sale consideration. These two cheques of Rs. 2,50,000/- each totaling to Rs. 5,00,000/- were in October 2007 replaced by the appellant/defendant with another cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- being Cheque No. 065856 drawn on Axis Bank Limited, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. At that time of giving of the subsequent cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/-, the appellant/defendant had taken back the cheques of Rs. 2,50,000/- each alongwith the undertaking but the respondent/plaintiff kept photocopies of the same. In the cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- the date was inadvertently written as 10.01.2007 instead of 10.01.2008 and in fact this date of 10.01.2008 is clearly mentioned in the undertaking. Though the respondent/plaintiff approached the appellant/defendant for correction in the cheque, the appellant/defendant avoided to do so. Hence, the respondent/plaintiff prayed a for decree of a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- alongwith interest.

(3.) On receipt of summons of the suit, the appellant/defendant contested the suit and pleaded that he had made payment of the entire sale consideration under the Sale Deed dated 28.12.2006, and this aspect is duly mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 28.12.2006. The appellant/defendant pleaded that the respondent/ plaintiff wanted certain documents and cheques for the purpose of the Income Tax Department and therefore, the appellant/defendant gave some blank white papers signed by him alongwith the two cheques of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff on the assurance that the same will not be misused. The appellant/defendant pleads that he had requested the respondent/plaintiff to return the cheques on many occasions, but the respondent/plaintiff failed to do so. In the month of October 2007, once again when the appellant/defendant approached the respondent/plaintiff for handing over the two earlier cheques of Rs. 2,50,000/-, the respondent/plaintiff requested for one back-dated cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- to show to the Income Tax Department due to some difficulties. The appellant/defendant therefore gave the cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/-, and on the basis of this cheque, the subject suit was filed. The appellant/defendant also pleaded that he had filed a civil suit for injunction for the demolition of the unauthorized construction against the previous owner of the subject property namely, Sh. Khushal Chand Arora, and on account of Sh. Khushal Chand Arora, the respondent/plaintiff had bad intention, and thus the signatures of the appellant/defendant were taken on blank sheets and also the three cheques.