MOHANLAL Vs. DAYALDAS AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, dated February 7, 1973, in a suit filed by the plaintiff Dayaldas and Co. for the refund of Rs. 10,000/- which was paid to the defendant as an advance money for the purchase of lands Khasra Nos. 261, 266 and 268 measuring 6 Bighas and 9 Biswas.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this litigagation are, in a nut shell, as follows : Mohanlal defendant entered into an agreement on June 8, 1970, to sell to the plaintiff agricultural land measuring 6 Bighas and 9 Biswas (bearing Khasra Nos. 261, 266 and 268). The plaintiff paid to the defendant as an advance Rs. 10,000/-. It was agreed between the parties that by December 6, 1970, the defendant shall execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the possession of the plots of land agreed to be sold by the defendant shall be transferred to the plaintiff. One of the conditions of the sale was that out of these three plots of land, one Biswa of land shall be retained by the defendant. It appears that the plaintiff did not comply with the obligation cast on him under the agreement and, therefore, the sale could not take effect on December 6, 1970. Thereafter the plaintiff filed a suit for the refund of Rupees 10,000/- paid by him as an advance money, because in his opinion the agreement was void due to the vagueness. Before filing a suit a notice was served by the plaintiff on the defendant to return the money, but it was not paid and, therefore, the plaintiff claimed interest by way of damages @ Rs. 12% per annum.

(3.) The defendant admitted the agreement between the parties but he came out with a plea in his written statement that the plaintiff committed the default and, therefore, he was liable to pay damages as per the stipulation in the agreement, which reads as follows:- ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED).. It was, therefore, claimed by the defendant that he was entitled to retain Rs. 10,000/- by way of damages, as the plaintiff was guilty of breach of contract.