MADAN MOHAN Vs. JAWALA PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and a decree of a learned Subordinate Judge First Class Delhi dismissing the plaintiff's suit for damages for breach of a contract of sale of immovable property. On 23rd September 1944, Jawala Parshad defendant agreed to sell to Madan Mohan a building consisting of a house with two shops bearing NOS. 10087 -10093 for a sum of Rs. 34,000. A receipt was executed which evidenced the payment of Rs. 99 by the plaintiff to the defendant as earnest money. It is recited in the receipt

(2.) ON or about 11th May 1945, the plaintiff paid Rs. 510 as costs of the stamp to the defendant and a stamp -paper was purchased. The sale -deed WAS written by Atal Behari, D. W. 2, in favour of Shrimati Bhagwati, wife of the plaintiff. It is in dispute whether this was done at the instance of the plaintiff or the defendant -the defendant claiming that it was at the former's instance. On about the same day stamp -papers were purchased for the purpose of having rent deeds executed by the tenants in favour of the plaintiff. The stamp papers were written upon by Atal Behari purporting to be on behalf of the tenants and one of them was even signed by one of the tenants. Another stamp -paper of the value of Rs. 1/ - was purchased for the purpose of writing an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant. The purchase of these stamp -papers or any knowledge thereof is denied by the plaintiff.

(3.) ON 8th June 1945, the plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 6000 as damages for breach of the contract of sale alleging that an agreement to sell had been entered into for Rs. 34,000 and he had paid Rs. 99 as earnest money. He then recited the various agreements which I have mentioned above, and in para. 5 he alleged that as the defendant had not given vacant possession even within the extended period and had committed a breach of the contract of sale, the plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 6000 as damages from the defendant. He also claimed return of Rs. 510 which he (the plaintiff) had paid for the stamp -paper and he also alleged that there was a defect in defendant's title.