ROSHANLAL Vs. MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 12,20,000.00 under Orr XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the plaint it has been averred that On 16.12.1996 an agreement was entered into between the parties for the purchase of WZ 431 Sri Nagar, Shakur Basti, Delhi, for a total consideration of Rs. 30,00,000.00 ; and thereupon Earnest Money of Rs. 3,00,000.00 was handed over by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. The Defendant had covenanted to hand over possession of the property on the execution of a Power of Attorney on 16.3.1996 (palpably this is a mistake and should read as 16.3.1997) on the receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 27,00,000.00 . This Agreement further witnessed that if the Defendant fails to perform his obligations then he would be liable to pay double the amount of Earnest Money. Thereafter a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000.00 was paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on 27.12.1996 and this ttyment was acknowledged on the same receipt dated 16.12.1996. These facts are not in dispute.

(2.) It is averred by the Plaintiff that the Defendant started avoiding the Plaintiff and for this reason the latter wrote a letter dated 13.2.1997 requesting the former to complete the sale transaction. Since this letter failed to evoke any response, a legal notice dated 27.2.1997 was served upon the Defendant. In this notice it was requested that, since 16.3.1997 was a `close day', the Defendant should reach the office of the Sub-Registrar, Pitam Pura, Delhi in the "early hours of 17.3.1997 with all the requisite documents, papers, permission and clearance from the appropriate authority for transfer so that the rest of the formalities should be carried out on 17.3.1997". The Plaintiff appears to have purchased a Cash Order dated 6.3.1997 for the balance payment of Rs. 24,00,000.00 , a photocopy of which is stated to have been sent alongwith another legal notice dated 11.3.1997, which was, however, received back with the endorsement that despite repeated visits by the postman the addressee was not found. The Defendant failed to turn up on 17.3.1997 and hence the sale transaction could not be completed.

(3.) It is the Plaintiff's case that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that Defendant had committed a breach thereof. The Plaintiff again sent a legal notice dated 21.3.1997 service of which was refused by the Defendant. This correspondence is available on the record.