SAT PAL JINDAL Vs. ARUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has filed this regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2.12.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Panchkula, whereby appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.7.2011 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Panchkula was allowed, thereby, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 40 lacs along with interest pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant being allottee -cum -owner of the residential plot number 1406, Sector 21, Panchkula measuring 300 square meters, agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,03,51,000/ - vide agreement to sell dated 22.3.2007. An earnest amount to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs was paid to the defendant and the target date for execution of agreement to sell was fixed as 15.5.2007 or within 10 days of granting permission in favour of the plaintiff by the HUDA to transfer the plot whichever was later. Factum of receipt of payment of Rs. 20 lacs from the plaintiff was duly acknowledged by the defendant vide separate receipt executed at the back of the agreement to sell. There was a recital in the agreement to sell that in case plaintiff backed out from the agreement, the earnest amount paid by the plaintiff shall stand forfeited and in case, defendant backed out from the agreement then double of the earnest amount would be paid by the defendant or to get the sale plot transferred by way of specific performance through Court.

(3.) Plaintiff further alleged that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of agreement but the defendant kept on postponing the issue on one pretext or the other and did not obtain permission from HUDA for the transfer of the plot in question on or before 15.5.2007. The defendant was granted permission to transfer the plot in favour of the plaintiff vide memo No. 9493 dated 18.6.2007. Defendant informed the plaintiff regarding the said permission through speed post on 25.6.2007, which was received by the plaintiff on 28.6.2007 and thereafter, in view of telephonic conversation, 2.7.2007 was fixed as the date for execution of sale deed. Plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Panchkula on 2.7.2007 for getting the sale deed executed in his favour on payment of balance sale consideration, but defendant did not turn up. Plaintiff kept on waiting till evening and ultimately, got his affidavit attested from Sub Registrar on 2.7.2007. Plaintiff further alleged that the defendant was not interested to sell the plot in question because the prices turned high in July, 2007, but subsequently the prices became low and defendant issued false notice for enforcement of agreement. Plaintiff alleged that as per clause 2 of the agreement to sell, defendant is liable to pay double of the earnest amount and with this background, the suit came to be filed.