Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2010 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (10) TMI 1177 - SC - Indian LawsSuit for specific performance - agreement of sale - refund of the earnest money - In present case, The appellant was the owner of the suit property. An agreement of sale was entered between defendant represented by her husband and attorney holder Kartar Singh, as vendor, and plaintiff represented by his attorney holder Paramjit Singh, as purchaser. The agreement of sale was signed by the attorney holder of the vendor and attorney holder of the purchaser and witnessed by Hari Singh (Property Dealer) and Balraj Singh. The agreement also contained an endorsement by Kartar Singh acknowledging the receipt of ₹ 10000/- as earnest money in addition to another sum of ₹ 1500/-.The plaintiff prayed for specific performance of the agreement of sale or in the alternative, if he was found not entitled to specific performance, then for a decree of recovery of ₹ 21,500/- (that is ₹ 11500/- paid to defendant’s attorney holder and ₹ 10000/- as liquidated damages) with costs. HELD THAT:- In this case, the evidence clearly showed that defendant’s attorney holder Kartar Singh had entrusted the work of securing the clearances to the property dealer Balraj Singh, who was acting on behalf of plaintiff. This was within the knowledge of Paramjit Singh, who was the attorney holder of plaintiff at the relevant point of time. Balraj Singh also admitted in his evidence that he was to get the NOC and ULC clearance. Balraj Singh sent a telegram to Kartar Singh at the instance of plaintiff, asking him to come to Chandigarh on 7.6.1979 and execute the sale deed. Therefore, Balraj Singh had either secured the certificates necessary for the sale or had deliberately called Kartar Singh to come over to Chandigarh, even though the plaintiff was not ready and the clearances had not been secured, to create evidence that plaintiff was ready. In neither case, the defendant could be faulted. Be that as it may. The material on record shows that the respondent-plaintiff committed breach. Therefore, the earnest money stood forfeited and respondent is not entitled for refund of the earnest money.
|