SUDHAKARRAO SHANKARRAO SARNAIK Vs. BHANUDAS N DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for determination in this second appeal is whether the appellant -plaintiff is entitled for the refund of earnest money with interest from the date of the suit till realisation.

(2.) RELEVANT facts are as under : -

(3.) MR . Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the claim of the plaintiff in this appeal is restricted to refund of earnest money only. He contended that the plaintiff himself is not dealing in money lending business and the property and business of his father is entirely separate and therefore, the learned Additional District Judge could not have declared the father of the plaintiff as money lender in the suit when he was not a party. He contended that the plaintiff had paid the amount of Rs. 4,000/ - as consideration and the execution of the agreement of sale is not denied. He contended that the defendant No. 1 admitted that he had signed on the blank stamp paper and therefore, the execution of the agreement of sale can be very well presumed especially when the defendant No. 1 would not sign the blank stamp paper. He further contended that the plaintiff is certainly entitled to refund of the earnest money. He pointed out that the Additional District Judge has committed error of law and facts and therefore, the judgment refusing to grant refund of earnest money cannot be sustained in law.