Delhi District Court
Manju Jain vs Sunil Kumar Manocha on 31 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR MEENA,
DISTRICT JUDGE-10 (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Civ DJ No.1303/2017
CNR No.DLWT01-010350-2017
Manju Jain
W/o Sh. Rampal Jain,
R/o 31, First Floor, Channa Mal Park,
East Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110026 ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
Sunil Kumar Manocha
S/o Late Sh. M.R. Manocha,
R/o 43, D.D.A. Flats,
Jaidev park,
East Punjabi Bagh,
New Deli-110026 ....Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.19,02,000/- (RUPEES NINETEEN LACS
TWO THOUSAND ONLY) WITH PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE
INTEREST @ 18%
Date of institution of case : 17.11.2017
Reserved for judgment : 28.10.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 31.10.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This court is rendering the present judgment to adjudicate the suit which was filed by Ms. Manju Jain (hereinafter to be referred as 'plaintiff') on 17.11.2017 against Sh. Sunil Kumar Manocha (hereinafter to be referred Civ No.1303/2017 Manju Jain Vs. Sunil Kumar Manocha Page 1 of 17 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA MEENA 2025.10.31 15:25:56 +0530 as 'defendant') for recovery of Rs. 19,02,000/- along with pendante-lite and future interest.
PLEADINGS OF PLAINTIFF
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant alongwith property dealer Sh. Anil Sharma, met plaintiff and represented to the plaintiff that he is sole and absolute owner of a flat bearing no. 43DDA Flats, Jai Dev Park, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 (hereinafter referred to be as 'suit property') and conveyed his desire to sell the suit property. Plaintiff has agreed to purchase the suit property from defendant for a total sale consideration of Rs.64,51,000/-. It is also pleaded that plaintiff made a payment of Rs.9,51,000/- on 11.04.2017 as part sale consideration and an agreement to sell dated 11.04.2017 (hereinafter to be referred as 'ATS') was also executed between the parties and it was agreed that balance consideration would be paid by 28.06.2017. It is also pleaded that plaintiff had applied for house loan with ICICI Bank, who after verifying the documents, rejected the house loan applied by plaintiff on the ground that flat is owned by defendant and his deceased mother and defendant is not the exclusive owner. It is also pleaded that it came to the notice of plaintiff that defendant had already cheated one Sh. Devender Kumar in the same manner and later on returned the amount received from Devender Kumar. It is also pleaded that it came to the notice that defendant had posted an advertisement on magicbrick.com for sale of abovesaid flat on 30.04.2017 i.e. just after entering into an agreement with plaintiff. It is also pleaded that when confronted the defendant stated that he has Will of the suit property in his favour and he will get probate from the court. It is also pleaded that plaintiff Civ No.1303/2017 Manju Jain Vs. Sunil Kumar Manocha Page 2 of 17 VINOD Digitally by VINOD signed KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.10.31 15:26:01 +0530 filed a complaint dated 20.06.2017 before the police authorities where defendant extended date of registry upto 11.08.2017 and further agreed to hand over the probate documents of Will latest by 07.07.2017. It is further pleaded that as defendant failed to provide probate document by 14.07.2017, plaintiff filed a complaint dated 15.07.2017 and FIR bearing no. 422/2017, PS Punjabi Bagh, U/s 420/406 IPC dated 20.08.2017 got registered against defendant. It is finally pleaded that having no other option plaintiff issued legal notice and file present suit for recovery of sum of Rs.19,02,000/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 18%.
PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANT
3. The defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement thereby refuting all the allegations and it was categorically contended/pleaded that present suit has been filed on the basis of false and concocted facts. It is further contended by the defendant that plaintiff has suppressed the material facts to mislead the court and to get the relief for which she is not entitled. It is also contended by the defendant that in the month of April, 2017 plaintiff approached the defendant alongwith a property dealer namely Anil Sharma, for buying the suit property and after seeing all the title documents plaintiff agreed to buy the said flat. It is also contended that it was specifically conveyed by the plaintiff that a probate petition is pending in Tis Hazari Courts in the Court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. ADJ, however, plaintiff conveyed to the defendant that probate certificate of will is not required and she is ready to buy the suit property/ said flat and also agreed to pay the remaining sale consideration on or before 29.06.2017. Thereafter, the ATS was executed between the parties on Civ No.1303/2017 Manju Jain Vs. Sunil Kumar Manocha Page 3 of 17 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.10.31 15:26:05 +0530 11.04.2017 and plaintiff paid an earnest money of Rs. 9,51,000/- to the defendant. It is also pleaded that plaintiff was supposed to clear the remaining sale consideration amount of Rs. 55 lakhs by 29.06.2017, however, instead of paying the amount plaintiff along with her husband and the property dealer came in the house of defendant in the month of June and made false excuses and create pressure on defendant to get probate certificate. It is also pleaded that plaintiff along with her husband and some anti-social elements came to the flat and the defendant on 19.06.2017 and stated to take Rs. 30 lakhs instead of Rs. 55 lakhs and to handover the suit property and a complaint dated 20.06.2017 was lodged in police station against the plaintiff and her husband and the property dealer and at there the plaintiff agreed/ promised to execute sale deed by 11.08.2012 after clearing the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 55 lakhs. It is also conveyed on 11.08.2012 that defendant reached on Sub-Registrar Office for getting the sale deed executed, however, nobody has appeared on behalf of plaintiff.
REPLICATION
4. Plaintiff has filed the replication to written statement wherein she refuted the claim/pleadings of defendant and reaffirmed her pleadings as stated in the plaint.
ISSUES
5. After the completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on 25.04.2019:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of Rs.
19,02,000/- as prayed for? OPP Civ No.1303/2017 Manju Jain Vs. Sunil Kumar Manocha Page 4 of 17 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA MEENA 2025.10.31 15:26:11 +0530
(ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for any interest, if yes, on what amount and for what period? OPP
(iii) Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
6. In support of her case, plaintiff has examined herself as PW-1 and through her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-1/A, she relied upon and exhibited following documents:
(i) Copy of agreement to sale dated 11.04.2017 is Ex.PW1/1(colly.);
(ii) Copy of receipt of payment of Rs.9,51,000/- is Ex. PW1/2;
(iii) Copy of advertisement dated 30.04.2017 is Ex.PW1/3;
(iv) Copy of complaint dated 20.06.2017 (DD No.45B) is Ex.PW1/4;
(v) Copy of Criminal complaint dated 15.07.2017 (DD No. 35B) is Ex.PW1/5;
(vi) Copy of FIR No. 0422, PS Punjabi Bagh dated 22.08.2017 is Ex.PW1/6;
(vii) Legal Notice dated 08.08.2017 with postal receipts is Ex. PW1/7(colly.) &
(viii) Legal notice dated 18.08.2017 by defendant is Ex. PW1/8 (colly.).
PW-1 was cross examined.
Plaintiff also examined Sh. Anil Sharma as PW-2 and Sh. Sandeep Dhatwalia as PW-3 to prove her case.
PW-2 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-2/A and he was cross-examined.
PW-3 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-3/X and he was cross-examined.
Civ No.1303/2017 Manju Jain Vs. Sunil Kumar Manocha Page 5 of 17 Digitally signed by VINODVINOD KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.10.31 15:26:16 +0530 DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
7. In his defence, the defendant has only examined himself as DW-1 and through his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW-1/X, he relied upon and exhibited following documents:
(i) The photocopy of agreement to sell/bayana dated 11.04.2017 is Ex.PW1/1;
(ii) The photocopy of criminal complaint dated 20.06.2017 is Mark DX;
(iii) The settlement dated 22.06.2017 is Ex.PW1/D1;
(iv) The photocopy of attendance of the plaintiff before Sub-Registrar vide receipt dated 11.08.2017 is Mark DA;
(v) The photocopy of legal notice dated 18.08.2017 alongwith postal courier receipts and Regd. AD card is Mark DB and
(vi) The photocopy of complaint dated 05.08.2017 vide DD No. 20B at PS Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi is Mark DC.
DW-1 was cross-examined by the plaintiff.
8. No evidence was adduced by plaintiff in rebuttal of evidence of defendant.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
9. Final arguments have been heard on behalf of both the parties at length.
• Final arguments of plaintiff: It is argued by or on behalf of plaintiff that defendant alongwith property dealer Sh. Anil Sharma met plaintiff and represented to the plaintiff that he is sole and absolute owner of the suit property and conveyed his desire to sell the suit Civ No.1303/2017 Manju Jain Vs. Sunil Kumar Manocha Page 6 of 17 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.10.31 15:26:21 +0530 property and plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property from defendant for a total sale consideration of Rs.64,51,000/-. It is also argued that plaintiff made a payment of Rs.9,51,000/- on 11.04.2017 as part sale consideration and ATS dated 11.04.2017 was executed between the parties and it was agreed that balance consideration would be paid by 28.06.2017. It is also argued that plaintiff had applied for house loan with ICICI Bank, who after verifying the documents, rejected the house loan applied by plaintiff on the ground that flat is jointly owned by defendant and his deceased mother and defendant is not the exclusive owner. It is also argued that it came to the notice of plaintiff that defendant had already cheated one Sh. Devender Kumar in the same manner and later on returned his amount. It is also argued that it came to the notice that defendant had posted an advertisement on magicbrick.com for sale of abovesaid flat on 30.04.2017 i.e. just after entering into an agreement with plaintiff. It is also argued that when confronted the defendant stated that he has Will of the suit property in his favour and he will get probate from the court. It is also argued that plaintiff filed a complaint dated 20.06.2017 before the police authorities where defendant extended date of registry upto 11.08.2017 and further agreed to hand over the probate documents of Will latest by 07.07.2017. It is further agrued that as defendant failed to provide probate document by 14.07.2017, plaintiff filed a complaint dated 15.07.2017 and FIR bearing no.
422/2017, PS Punjabi Bagh, U/s 420/406 IPC dated 20.08.2017 got registered against defendant. It is further argued that having no other option plaintiff issued legal notice and file present suit for recovery of Civ No.1303/2017 Manju Jain Vs. Sunil Kumar Manocha Page 7 of 17 VINOD Digitally by VINOD signed KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.10.31 15:26:26 +0530 sum of Rs.19,02,000/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 18%. It is finally submitted that suit be decreed. • Final arguments of defendant: Per contra, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that in the month of April, 2017 plaintiff approached the defendant alongwith a property dealer namely Anil Sharma for buying the suit property and after seeing all the title documents plaintiff agreed to buy the said flat. It is also argued that it was specifically conveyed by the plaintiff that a probate petition is pending in Tis Hazari Courts in the Court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. ADJ, however, plaintiff conveyed to the defendant that probate certificate of will is not required and she is ready to buy the suit property/ said flat and also agreed to pay the remaining sale consideration on or before 29.06.2017. It is also argued that the ATS was executed between the parties on 11.04.2017 and plaintiff paid an earnest money of Rs. 9,51,000/- to the defendant. It is also argued that plaintiff was supposed to clear the remaining sale consideration amount of Rs. 55 lakhs by 29.06.2017, however, instead of paying the amount plaintiff along with her husband and the property dealer came in the house of defendant in the month of June and made false excuses and create pressure on defendant to get probate certificate. It is also argued that a complaint dated 20.06.2017 was lodged in police station against the plaintiff and there the plaintiff agreed/ promised to execute sale deed by 11.08.2012 after clearing the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 55 lakhs. It is also argued that defendant was always ready and willing to perform the ATS, however, plaintiff failed to comply with the terms of ATS. It is finally argued that it is the Civ No.1303/2017 Manju Jain Vs. Sunil Kumar Manocha Page 8 of 17 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA MEENA 2025.10.31 15:26:31 +0530 plaintiff who had committed breach of contract and the present suit filed by plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS
10. After hearing final arguments on behalf of both the parties and after going through the pleadings as well as evidence and all the annexed & exhibited documents, record and issue wise finding given as under:
Findings on Issue no.1 & 2 :
11. As far as issue no. (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of Rs. 19,02,000/- as prayed for? OPP and (ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for any interest, if yes, on what amount and for what period? OPP, are concerned, same are being taken together for discussion and adjudication as these issues are inter connected and may conveniently and logically be decided with common findings.
12. As far as issue no. 1 is concerned, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that she is entitled for recovery for sum of Rs. 19,02,000/-. Before proceeding further with deciding the issue no. 1, Court deem it fit to mention here the relevant admitted facts between the parties:
(a) It is admitted between both the parties that plaintiff was ready to purchase suit property for a total agreed sale consideration of Rs.
64,51,000/- from defendant and the deal was initiated/ executed by one property dealer Sh. Anil Sharma.
(b) It is also an admitted fact that a sum of Rs.9,51,000/- was paid by plaintiff to the defendant and ATS dated 11.04.2017 was executed between Civ No.1303/2017 Manju Jain Vs. Sunil Kumar Manocha Page 9 of 17 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.10.31 15:26:36 +0530 the parties wherein the factum of total sale consideration as Rs.64,51,000/- and admitted payment of sum of Rs. 9,51,000/- by plaintiff to defendant have been mentioned and date for executing sale deed and for making the payment of remaining sale consideration of Rs. 55,00,000/- was set as 29.06.2017.
13. Having gone through the admitted facts, now court deem it fit to mention here the contentious points as contended by both the parties. It is contended by defendant that at the time of entering the ATS it was intimated by the defendant to the plaintiff that suit property is in joint name of him and his deceased mother and he had already filed a probate petition before the court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts. Same was denied by plaintiff and contended that factum of property, being jointly in the name of defendant and his mother, had never been conveyed to her at the time of executing the ATS.
14. It is pertinent to mention here that in ATS Ex.PW1/1, it had been mentioned/ printed/ written that the property is free from all sort of incumbrances, liens, decree, court case, attachment etc.
15. It was contended by plaintiff that at the time of entering the ATS, defendant had not intimated the factum of property, being jointly in the name of defendant and his mother, whereas, defendant contended that he had duly communicated the factum of property, being jointly in the name of defendant and his mother. It is pertinent to mention here that in the ATS Ex.PW1/1, it has been printed/ written/ mentioned that the suit property is Civ No.1303/2017 Manju Jain Vs. Sunil Kumar Manocha Page 10 of 17 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.10.31 15:26:43 +0530 free from all sort of incumbrances, liens, decree, court case, attachment etc. in para 1 itself. It is pertinent to mention here that this line has neither been deleted nor cut nor anything has been mentioned in handwriting on the Ex.PW1/1, in this context.
16. Now, the Court is confronted with the question as to whether in the cases of written documents/contract, grants and other disposition of the property reduced to the form of the document, can a party adduce oral evidence to rebut the same. The answer to the question has been provided in Section 94 & 95 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as BSA which is akin to Section 91 & 92 of Indian Evidence Act), wherein it has been stipulated that where the terms of contract of grants or any other dispossession of the property have been reduced to the form of written documents, no evidence shall be given in proof of the term of such contract, grant or other dispossession of the property except the document itself. Section 94 & 95 of BSA are quoted here as under for the sake of clarity:-
"94. When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained.
Exception 1.--When a public officer is required by law to be appointed in writing, and when it is shown that any particular person has acted as such officer, the writing by which he is appointed need not be proved.
Exception 2.--Wills admitted to probate in India may be proved by the probate.
Explanation 1.--This section applies equally to cases in which the Civ No.1303/2017 Manju Jain Vs. Sunil Kumar Manocha Page 11 of 17 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA MEENA 2025.10.31 15:26:48 +0530 contracts, grants or dispositions of property referred to are contained in one document, and to cases in which they are contained in more documents than one. Explanation 2.--Where there are more originals than one, one original only need be proved.
Explanation 3.--The statement, in any document whatever, of a fact other than the facts referred to in this section, shall not preclude the admission of oral evidence as to the same fact.
95. When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to section 94, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms:
Provided that any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law:
Provided further that the existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document:
Provided also that the existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved:
Provided also that the existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents: Provided also that any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved: Provided also that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract:
Provided also that any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts..."Civ No.1303/2017 Manju Jain Vs. Sunil Kumar Manocha Page 12 of 17
VINOD Digitally by VINOD signed KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.10.31 15:26:54 +0530
17. Having gone through the provisions as enumerated under Section 94 & 95 of BSA, it is clear that where the terms of contract or of a grant or any other disposition of the property have been reduced to the form of written documents, neither the party can claim that terms of sale as such the consideration or nature of transaction or disposition is in fact different from what is contained in the documents itself.
18. It has been categorically averred in the documents itself that the suit property was free from all sort of incumbrances, liens, decree, court case, attachment etc. At the cost of repetition, it has to be mentioned here that this line has neither been deleted nor cut nor any other endorsement has been mentioned/written in Ex.PW1/1. There is no other written endorsement/written communication which suggested that it was intimated by defendant that property being jointly in the name of defendant and his mother. For the sake of clarity the second paragraph of ATS is quoted here as under:-
"And whereas the First Party/Seller/s is/are the true, absolute, lawful owner/s and in possession of property No. FLAT NO. 43, DDA JAI DEV PARK, EAST PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI-110026."
The para 1 is also quoted here as under for the sake of clarity:-
"That the first party/seller assure to the Second Party/ Purchaser that the above noted property/Shop under sale is free from all sorts of encumbrances, liens, decree, court case, attachments etc, if found otherwise, the first party held liable for the same."
19. At this stage, court deem it fit the relevant para from the judgment titled as Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani, (2003) 6 SCC 595, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court commented on section 91 of the Civ No.1303/2017 Manju Jain Vs. Sunil Kumar Manocha Page 13 of 17 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA MEENA 2025.10.31 15:26:59 +0530 Evidence Act by observing that:-
"13. ... ... ... This section merely forbids proving the contents of a writing otherwise than by writing itself; it is covered by the ordinary rule of law of evidence, applicable not merely to solemn writings of the sort named but to others known sometimes as the best-evidence rule. It is in reality declaring a doctrine of the substantive law, namely, in the case of a written contract, that all proceedings and contemporaneous oral expressions of the thing are merged in the writing or displaced by it. (See Thayer's Preliminary Law on Evidence, p. 397 and p. 398; Phipson's Evidence, 7th Edn., p. 546; Wigmore's Evidence, p. 2406.)... ... ...."
(emphasis supplied) The Court further observed that:-
"16. ... .... .... This rule is based upon an assumed intention on the part of the contracting parties, evidenced by the existence of the written contract, to place themselves above the uncertainties of oral evidence and on a disinclination of the courts to defeat this object. When persons express their agreements in writing, it is for the express purpose of getting rid of any indefiniteness and to put their ideas in such shape that there can be no misunderstanding, which so often occurs when reliance is placed upon oral statements. Written contracts presume deliberation on the part of the contracting parties and it is natural they should be treated with careful consideration by the courts and with a disinclination to disturb the conditions of matters as embodied in them by the act of the parties. (See McKelvey's Evidence, p. 294.) As observed in Greenlear's Evidence, p. 563, one of the most common and important of the concrete rules presumed under the general notion that the best evidence must be produced and that one with which the phrase best evidence is now exclusively associated is the rule that when the contents of a writing are to be proved, the writing itself must be produced before the court or its absence accounted for before testimony to its contents is admitted.
17. It is likewise a general and most inflexible rule that wherever written instruments are appointed, either by the requirement of law, or by the contract of the parties, to be the repositories and memorials of truth, any other evidence is excluded from being used either as a substitute for such instruments, or to contradict or alter them. This is a matter both of principle and policy. It is of principle because such instruments are in their own nature and origin, entitled to a much higher degree of credit than parol Civ No.1303/2017 Manju Jain Vs. Sunil Kumar Manocha Page 14 of 17 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.10.31 15:27:04 +0530 evidence. It is of policy because it would be attended with great mischief if those instruments, upon which men's rights depended, were liable to be impeached by loose collateral evidence".
(underline added) From the abovequoted observations by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and after going through the provisions of Section 94 & 95 of BSA, the Court left with no doubt that when it has been categorically mentioned in the written documents itself that the suit property was free from all sort of incumbrances, liens, decree, court case, attachment etc., then allowing the defendant to plead contrary to the terms of written documents would be tantamount to put premium on dishonesty.
20. So once it is clear that it was clearly and categorically written in Ex.PW1/1, which is ATS, to the effect that defendant was the sole and absolute owner of the suit property and that the suit property was free from all sort of incumbrances, liens, decree, court case, attachment etc., then contention on the part of defendant that he intimated plaintiff in advance that property was already in joint name and probate petition/proceedings are pending before the court is nothing but baseless. So, the very basis of Ex.PW1/1 is under clouds. So once the plaintiff herself is refuting the very basis of ATS on the ground that ATS has been executed after quoting wrong and misleading facts, she cannot take the plea that she is entitled to receive double the amount of earnest money as written in the ATS itself. Moreover, it is not the case of plaintiff that she was ready and willing to perform ATS and it is only the defendant who failed to perform terms of ATS. Though, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover double the amount of earnest money, yet, in this scenario, propriety demands that the amount received by Civ No.1303/2017 Manju Jain Vs. Sunil Kumar Manocha Page 15 of 17 VINOD Digitally by VINOD signed KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.10.31 15:27:09 +0530 defendant as earnest money be returned.
21. In view of the above-mentioned, the issue no. 1 is partly decided in favour of plaintiff to the effect that plaintiff is entitled to recover sum of Rs.9,51,000/-, which was given as an earnest money to defendant. As far as issue no. 2 is concerned, the plaintiff has sought pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. on the adjudicated amount. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that there was a contract or a custom or usage in the market, which entitles the plaintiff to receive the interest @ 18% p.a as pendente-lite and future interest. PW1/plaintiff in her evidence has failed to prove that there was contract or a custom or a usage, which entitles the plaintiff to receive pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. Thus, in the present case, taking a judicial notice of the interest granted by the nationalized banks, in case of the money lend or advanced in relation to commercial transactions, I consider it appropriate, to grant to the plaintiff the pendente-lite and future interest @ 6% per annum.
22. Before parting with findings on issue no.1 & 2, it is hereby again clarified that the prayer of the plaintiff for the grant of pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of @ 18% p.a is found to be excessive so, instead of @ 18% p.a the pendente-lite and future interest has been granted @6% per annum on the adjudicated amount.
RELIEF
23. On the basis of the finding of the issue no. 1 & 2, this Court is adjudicating the suit with the findings that the suit of the plaintiff is partly Civ No.1303/2017 Manju Jain Vs. Sunil Kumar Manocha Page 16 of 17 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA MEENA 2025.10.31 15:27:15 +0530 decreed with the findings that plaintiff is entitled to recover sum of Rs.9,51,000/- which was given as earnest money to defendant alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 6% per annum.
24. No order as to costs as the parties shall bear their own respective costs of the suit.
25. Applications, if any, which are pending in the present judicial file and have not been pressed for by the parties are also disposed of as dismissed as not pressed.
26. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly, after the payment of deficient court fees (if any).
27. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD KUMAR
KUMAR MEENA
Date: 2025.10.31
MEENA
Announced in the open Court 15:27:20 +0530
today on 31st October, 2025 (Vinod Kumar Meena)
District Judge-10
West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
31.10.2025
Civ No.1303/2017
Manju Jain Vs. Sunil Kumar Manocha Page 17 of 17