MERA BABA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD Vs. CHAILU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has instituted this suit for recovery of Rs.4,48,31,000/- pleading (i) that the defendant, vide agreement to sell dated 19th April, 2013 agreed to sell his agricultural land to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.35,28,80,000/- and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.3,53,00,000/- to the defendant as advance payment i.e. 10% of the total amount and the receipt whereof the defendant acknowledged; (ii) that though the plaintiff approached the defendant to complete the sale and to deliver possession of the land as well as original title deeds, but subsequently came to know that the land which was shown by the defendant to the plaintiff was not owned by the defendant and the defendant also failed and avoided to take 'No Objection Certificate' from the Competent Authority for taking Tatima / demarcation of the land and/or for partition of the land; (iii) that the defendant, despite extension of time for taking steps, failed to comply with his part of the agreement; and, (iv) that the defendant was thus liable to refund the advance payment of Rs.3,53,00,000/- received, but failed to do so inspite of demand. Hence, the suit for recovery of Rs.3,53,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 31st July, 2013 to 30th July, 2016 amounting to Rs.95,31,000/- i.e. for total amount of Rs.4,48,31,000/-.

(2.) The suit came up first before this Court on 12th August, 2016, when summons thereof were ordered to be issued. The order dated 20th December, 2016 records that written statement had been filed by the defendant. However, the defendant died soon thereafter and vide order dated 28th August, 2017 his legal representatives (LRs) were substituted. The order dated 28th August, 2017 also records that written statement had already been filed by the deceased defendant and the plaintiff was directed to file replication thereto. However, the subsequent order dated 14th November, 2017 records that the LRs of the deceased defendant had filed a fresh written statement and the plaintiff was directed to file replication thereto. There was however no adjudication, whether the LRs of the deceased defendant were entitled to file a fresh written statement.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in the suit on 7th September, 2018: