SANTOSH BATRA Vs. GOLDEN FOREST (INDIA) LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are before this Court against the judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court whereby that of the trial court was reversed and the suit filed by the respondent -plaintiff, was decreed.

(2.) THE facts, as are evident from the judgment of the Courts below, are that on 5.1.1990, the appellants entered into an agreement to sell land measuring 13 bighas 2 biswas with the respondent -plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 2,30,000/ -. Rs. 10,000/ - was paid as earnest money. Certain conditions were settled at the time of execution of agreement to sell. It was agreed that the respondent will issue a fixed deposit of Rs. 1,30,000/ - in favour of the appellants up to 31.3.1990. Thereafter, the appellants shall get the sale -deed registered on receipt of Rs. 90,000/ - before the Sub -Registrar. It was further agreed that till such time the sale -deed is executed, the respondent -plaintiff shall pay interest @ 18% per annum to the appellants on Rs. 90,000/ -. On 11.1.1990, fixed deposit receipt with a maturity value of Rs. 1,40,000/ - was issued to the appellants. Appellant no. 1 had also realised 13 cheques of the amount of Rs. 2,100/ - each on different dates from the respondent and further monthly cheques of Rs. 2,100/ - from March, 1991 onwards. The same was on account of profits in the scheme under which Rs. 1,30,000/ - were deposited with the respondent -plaintiff for a period of two years. Thereafter, two cheques for Rs. 3,375/ - dated 1.11.1990 were given. Last date for execution of sale -deed was 30.1.1991. As the same was holiday, the respondent -plaintiff appeared before the Sub -Registrar on 31.1.1991 but the appellants did not appear as a result of which the sale -deed was not registered. Thereafter, the respondent -plaintiff filed the suit on 25.3.1991. The same was contested by the appellants on the plea that the last date fixed for registration of sale -deed was 31.3.1990. Thereafter, with mutual understanding the agreement to sell was cancelled and the amount received by the appellants was returned by way of banker cheque which was encashed by the respondent. However, it was admitted that though there was no extension of time for registration of sale -deed, but it was agreed to be executed on 30.1.1991. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: -

(3.) IN appeal filed by the respondent -plaintiff, the learned Lower Appellate Court found that vide letter dated 18.5.1991, as was written by the appellants to the respondent -plaintiff, it cannot be opined that the agreement to sell between the parties was cancelled, hence, the learned Lower Appellate Court directed for execution of sale -deed. It is against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court that the appellants -defendants filed the second appeal before this Court which was initially listed on 14.7.2000 and after hearing learned counsel for the appellants, this Court dismissed the same in limine finding no infirmity in the judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court. The appellants challenged the order passed by this Court by filing Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble the Supreme Court which was converted into appeal and finally disposed of on 17.2.2009 by remitting the matter back and directing decision thereof afresh after framing substantial question (s) of law. It is how the matter is before this Court.