KASHMIR SINGH Vs. GURMAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-defendant is aggrieved of the finding arrived at by the Courts below whereby the suit was decreed qua alternative relief ordering refund of earnest money of Rs.2,50,000.00, though the decree qua rate of interest was modified by the lower Appellate Court from 12% to 9% per annum.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dtd. 3/3/2006 in respect of suit land referred to in the plaint, agreed to be sold @ Rs.8,05,000.00 per acre against the payment of earnest money of Rs.2,50,000.00. The stipulated date for execution and registration of the sale deed was 29/5/2006. The plaintiff did not mark himself present before the Sub Registrar owing to ill-health but appeared on the next date whereas the defendant is stated to have appeared and sent notice dtd. 31/5/2006 regarding his absence, which was replied by saying that suit property was not partitioned. It was contended that the property had already been partitioned.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that once terms and conditions of the agreement envisaged forfeiture of the earnest money on account of non-compliance of terms and conditions of the agreement, there was no requirement on behalf of the defendants to specifically forfeit vide legal notice dtd. 31/5/2006, therefore, there is abdication and illegality.