Delhi District Court
Sh. Suresh Chand vs Smt. Manisha Saini on 31 August, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUJATA KOHLI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE04(WEST)
TIS HAZARI : DELHI
C.S. No.276/09
Sh. Suresh Chand,
S/o Late Sh. Babu Ram
R/o 2542, Talab Road,
Tri Nagar,
Delhi
....Plaintiff
VERSUS
Smt. Manisha Saini
W/o Sh. Anil Saini
R/o 1997/165, First Floor,
Back Portion, Main Tota Ram Bazar,
Ganeshpura, B, Tri Nagar,
Delhi110035.
...Defendant
Date of filing the suit : 03.06.2009
Date of reserving of Judgment : 18.08.2012
Date of passing of Judgment : 31.08.2012
Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini
2
JUDGMENT:
The short question involved in this controversy is only as to who committed breach of the agreement and in other words on whose account the agreement failed to be implemented, whether plaintiff or the defendant, with all other facts regarding execution of the agreement, the total sale price of the property agreed, the factum of receipt of earnest money not being in dispute. The case of the plaintiff is that it was because of a short coming in the description of the property and leading up to non issuance of an NOC from the Revenue Authorities which was the reason for the nonexecution of the sale deed. While going by the case of the defendant, it was the financial inability of the plaintiff to meet the balance payment required for the execution of the sale deed.
2. Plaintiff simply claimed that the khasra number of the property which was actually 243, had not been revealed by the defendant, while defendant has countered this by referring to the agreement stating that khasra number was not relevant, in as much as the defendant herself had earlier purchased the property without any hindrance from any authority and similarly she has also sold off the property ultimately without any hindrance to the execution of a sale deed and therefore, the story brought forward by the plaintiff relating to the khasra number being different or the NOC not being obtained Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 3 were only mere lame excuses to wriggle out of the agreement.
3. The brief facts as stated are that plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant on 30.07.2008, as per the receipt of earnest money dated 03.07.2008, whereby the defendant had agreed to sell 42 sq. yards of back portion of property No. 1997/156, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar, Delhi to plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 10,25,000/, and out of which sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ was taken by the defendant at the time of agreement as earnest money and balance i.e. Rs. 8,25,000/ was payable at the time of execution/registration of the saledeed, the last date there for being 05.11.2008.
4. Further alleged that after entering into the agreement, plaintiff inquired from the defendant about the Khasra number wherein the property falls as according to the plaintiff, without mentioning the khasra number it was not possible to get the sale deed registered.
5. Further alleged that when plaintiff made inquiries on his own from the Revenue Authorities, it transpired that the said property fell in khasra number 243, VillageChowkari, Mubarakbad and Revenue Authorities are not issuing the NOC for registration of sale deed in respect of the said property and therefore, it was not possible to get the sale deed registered.
Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 4
6. Further alleged that defendant had deliberately concealed the said fact and induced, the plaintiff to enter into an agreement and to part with the earnest money i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/ wrongfully.
7. Further alleged that pursuant to service of legal notice upon the defendant on 05.11.2008, defendant issued a reply dated 10.11.2008 admitting therein that the said property was in khasra number 243, VillageChowkari, Mubarakbad and vide their rejoinder to the said reply plaintiff informed the defendant that sale deed could not be registered in respect of the said khasra number 243, VillageChowkari, Mubarakbad and called upon the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/ to the plaintiff as defendant was actually not having any right to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property. However, the defendant failed to return the said amount and as such having no other alternative, the plaintiff has come up with the present suit for recovery, claiming Rs. 4,00,000/ as per the terms of the agreement to sell dated 03.07.2008.
8. Defendant strongly disputed the stand of the plaintiff and in the WS has taken some preliminary objections mainly being that plaintiff has not come up with clean hands before the Court and has given a totally false and distorted version.
9. As per the version of the defendant, a valid agreement/Bayana receipt had indeed been executed between the parties on 03.07.2008 whereby the defendant had Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 5 admittedly agreed to sell the property 1997/156, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar, Delhi, back portion thereof measuring 42 sq. yards to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 10,25,000/ and out of the said sum, Rs. 2,00,000/ had admittedly been received by the defendant as earnest money.
10. However, as per the defendant it is solely on account of the plaintiff's conduct in as much as the plaintiff was not at all ever willing to perform his part of the contract/receipt dated 03.07.2008 as he was not having the funds to make the balance payment, due to which reason the sale deed could not be registered.
11. It is further elaborated that defendant had even been present before the office of SubRegistrar concerned on 05.05.2008 as agreed and her entry was also recorded in the said office. Further claimed that defendant has also informed the plaintiff about her presence at the office of SubRegistrar but plaintiff still did not turn up for the execution of the sale deed in the office of the SubRegistrar and simply the reason was that he could not arrange the balance amount for sale consideration i.e. Rs. 8,25,000/.
12. In fact, it is claimed by the defendant that since she was keen to execute the sale deed, she even extended time period from 05.11.2008 till 10.12.2008. Ultimately, also when plaintiff failed to turn up for execution of the sale deed in the office of the Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 6 SubRegistrar, the agreement was terminated on account of plaintiff's conduct and the earnest money stood forfeited as per the agreement, as per which time was of the essence of the contract.
13. Further stated on behalf of the defendant that thereafter defendant compelled to sell the said property to some other person namely Sh. Ravinder Kumar Gupta which was executed vide a valid legal documents, however, at a much lower price only Rs. 3,30,000/ as the property rates had receded due to the on going recession in the market. Even the possession of the said property is stated to have been handed over to the said third person.
14. As regards the ground taken by the plaintiff, regarding khasra number and obstruction in issuance of NOC to the sale of the property, defendant has further clarified that the above fact that the defendant was able to sell off the property to a third person by way of properly executed sale deed duly registered, would clearly falsify the stand of the plaintiff that sale deed of the property could not be executed due to the reasons stated by the plaintiff.
15. Furthermore, as regards the khasra number not being revealed, defendant has further replied that the defendant had duly intimated the plaintiff about the khasra number being 243 in village Chowkari, Mubarkapur, from the beginning and that Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 7 defendant had also made up to date payment in respect of house tax, electricity and water charges etc., of the suit property.
16. Furthermore, defendant has emphasized the fact that defendant herself has purchased the property by virtue of a duly registered sale deed and also ultimately sold it by a registered sale deed and that in the face of it, the stand taken by the plaintiff is falsified.
17. According to defendant, plaintiff has miserably failed to perform his part of the agreement as he was lacking the funds to pay the balance of sale consideration. Accordingly, defendant seeks dismissal of the suit.
18. Plaintiff filed a replication to the WS of the defendant and reiterated the contents of the plaintiff. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide proceedings dated 30.09.2010.
1. Whether the defendant has committed breach of agreement dated 03.07.2009? OPP 2 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred U/S 74 of Indian Contract Act? OPD 3 Whether there is no cause of action against the defendant? OPD 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 8 amount of rupees four lacs from the defendants? OPD 5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP 6 Relief
19. During evidence, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 on his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A and also tendered the following documents in evidence:
1. Original receipt of the earnest money dated 03.07.2008 - Ex.PW1/1
2. Copy of Legal Notice dated 05.11.2008 - Ex.PW1/2
3. Reply received from the defendant dated 10.11.2008 - Ex.PW1/3
4. Copy of reply/rejoinder notice dated 14.11.2008 - Ex.PW1/4.
20. Besides plaintiff also examined another witness namely Sh. Ramesh Chand as PW2 on his affidavit Ex. PW2/A.
21. Defendant in turn, examined himself as DW1 on her affidavit Ex.DW1/1. Besides she also tendered a receipt Ex.DW1/A.
22. In addition, defendant also examined Sh. Om Parkash, the record clerk from the office of SubRegistrar, Pitampura, Delhi as DW2 who produced the original record of registration with respect to Sale Deed dated 18.02.2009 executed by the defendant in favour of Sh. Ravinder Kumar Gupta and proved the copy therof on the judicial record as Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 9 Ex.DW2/A(OSR).
23. The said witness also produced the original record of another Sale Deed having been executed by Smt. Meena Goyal in favour of the defendant dated 30.03.2005, and proved the copy thereof on the judicial record as Ex.DW2/B(OSR).
24. Arguments heard. Record perused.
25. I proceed to decide the case in the light of arguments addressed and on basis of the material on record, my issuewise findings being as under: ISSUES NO.1 & 3 : "Whether the defendant has committed breach of agreement dated 03.07.2009? OPP "Whether there is no cause of action against the defendant? OPD"
26. On perusal of documents/exhibits, the first document on which the entire case is rested, the description of the property as stated therein Ex. PW1/1 is in terms of plot number being 1997/156, Ganeshpura, Tri Nagar, Delhi, measuring 42 sq. yards. The document Ex. PW1/1 does not mention any khasra number whatsoever and as such it is not reflected that khasra number was really in question and was relevant.
Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 10
27. It is from Ex. PW1/2 that it is revealed that it is for the first time that plaintiff raised any such objection regarding the khasra number and NOC through its notice dated 05.11.2008, copy of which is Ex. PW1/2. The initial agreement had been executed as long back as on 03.07.2008 and wherein also it was clearly laid down that the purchaser shall not enter into the agreement without having seen the complete documents of the property and also do his part of the performance without any delay or otherwise, the property dealer concerned would not be having any responsibility. However, in spite of the agreement executed way back in the beginning of July, the plaintiff has evidently slept over his rights of its own until November when firs time he raised this objection regarding the khasra number, which on the face of it appear to be quite frivolous, a mere pretext or an excuse to get out of the transaction.
28. The surrounding documents particularly Ex. DW2/A which is a copy of sale deed executed by the defendant later on in favour of a third person and at a much lower price, which document is clearly showing the same property number as a description being 1997/156, though no doubt it does show a corresponding khasra number as well as being No. 620/552/243/1/3.
29. The plaintiff has not produced any such material to establish that khasra number of the said property was 243 only and that an NOC was not being issued from Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 11 Revenue Authorities for this reason.
30. It is not understandable when a sale deed could have been duly registered for the same property between the defendant and a third person, why a sale deed would not have been got registered between the defendant and the plaintiff. Further there could also have been no motive available to the defendant to conceal or to deliberately furnish a wrong khasra number as the defendant did not stand to benefit by selling off the property to another person at a much lower price as against the sale price agreed with the plaintiff and the difference in the sale price being as much as almost about Rs. 9,00,000/.
31. Even otherwise, though 05.11.2008 was supposed to be the last date for execution of the sale deed, in the normal course, if the plaintiff had been actually concerned about the nonexecution thereof or any hurdle to the execution thereto as alleged by him he would surely have approached the defendant much prior thereto, i.e. any day after 03.07.2008 and in case the defendant had failed to meet the deficiency, he would have pursued the matter strongly, the plaintiff would not have waited till 05.11.2008.
32. At the same time, in case the sale deed indeed was not executed because of the deficiency of the property at the instance of defendant as alleged, and when plaintiff Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 12 waited right up till 05.11.2008, in that event he would have made more efforts to get the defendant to execute the sale deed and to do all that was needful for the purpose of the execution, including obtaining NOC.
33. Even otherwise, in the normal course of conduct a person would not pay a large sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ without verifying even the description of the property and at least the same would not stand to reason and to belief.
34. Though, in the reply to the legal notice Ex. PW1/3, the defendant has replied that khasra number of the suit property was 243, but defendant stated therein that he had already made up to date payment in respect of the house tax, electricity and water dues etc., and he was having proper receipts for the same and furthermore, defendant was having a clear title to the property and legally competent to dispose it of as revealed by Ex. DW2/A i.e. sale deed executed later on by by the defendant in favour of some other person namely Sh. Ravinder Kumar Gupta.
35. The defendant sold of the property on 18.02.2009 to the said Mr. Ravinder Kumar Gupta at a much lower price i.e. Rs. 3,30,000/ only as against what the defendant would have received from the plaintiff and as such, there could be no motive ascribed to the defendant to commit a breach of the agreement. Nor there could be any defect to be there in the property papers, as otherwise, the sale deed Ex. PW1/A would Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 13 also not have been registered.
36. Ex. DW2/A shows that the property has been described as No. 1997/156, which was the same number as in the agreement Ex. PW1/1 in question. The area measuring therein also being same i.e. 42 sq. yards.
37. Sale deed Ex. DW2/B shows the purchase of property by the defendant from one Smt. Neena Goyal is also describing the property by its No. 1997/156.
38. Going by the chain documents of title, there could have been no hurdle to the registration of the sale deed mentioning only the property number and as such the khasra number was not even relevant.
39. Ex. PW1/A, receipt issued from the office of SubRegistrar concerned establishes the presence of the defendant before the said office on 05.11.2008. The said receipt is accompanied by the copy of the application for inspection of the index for the period December, 2006 till November, 2008 relating to property No. 1997/156 measuring 42 sq. yards khasra No. 243 situated in Village Chowkari, Ganesh Pura, ATri Nagar, Delhi35.
40. Furthermore, the plaintiff has failed to bring on record any such document in support of the version that an NOC with regard to the sale of the said property was Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 14 required from the Revenue Authority and that the same had been refused/rejected for any reason whatsoever.
41. It is not understandable as to why when the same property or even a portion of the property could be sold and purchased by way of a registered sale deed, as reflected by documents Ex. DW2/B (showing the sale of all built up back side portion of ground floor of property No. 1997/156 measuring 50 sq. yards alongwith the entire roof/terrace rights over and above the ground floor area measuring 98 sq. yards, with further roof/terrace rights thereon located in VillageChowkari, Mubarakbad, Delhi State, colony known as Main Tota Ram Bazaar, Tri Nagar, Delhi35 and the ground floor portion being bounded and with free hold rights of the land under the said property) and reflecting the sale of property in Ex. DW2/A, (then ground floor measuring 42 sq. yards consisting of two rooms and side walls being common, out of property number 1997/156 bearing khasra number 620/552/243/1/3) situated in Village Chowkari, Mubarakbad, Delhi, colony known as Main Tota Ram Bazaar, Tri Nagar, Delhi35, why a hurdle could have been raised to the execution of the sale deed in respect to the same property or any of its portion between the plaintiff and the defendant, has remained unexplained.
42. The oral testimony of PW1 particularly, some of his replies during cross Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 15 examination, it is quite astonishing that plaintiff could have come up with story as brought forward by him regarding he being so innocent as not to be aware about the description of the property which he was going to purchase.
43. The plaintiff/PW1 has admitted squarely that he is into the property dealing business and for as long as about last 34 years. Not only this, he has also replied that he has his property office under the name and style of Om Properties located in Tri Nagar itself, which is the very locality where the property in question was also located. It is beyond stretch of imagination that plaintiff a well adept property dealer, a man of the world of property, would not be knowing the description of the property. Throughout, from his replies, it is clear that he never signs any documents without understanding the contents and that, would not even be expected from a property dealer.
44. Furthermore, it raises a serious question mark on the conduct of the plaintiff, when throughout, right since the time of the reply to his legal notice, the defendant was going on suggesting him to that he was actually not having the ready funds to purchase the property, and that he was trying to wriggle out of the transaction by creating a false version, the plaintiff did nothing to remove the doubts raised, in as much as the plaintiff failed to lead any evidence on the aspect of his financial capacity to have purchased the property, by paying the balance amount of Rs.8,25,000/ at the Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 16 relevant period of time or even at any point in the pendency of this suit. In fact, he preferred to ignore this aspect and to remain silent.
45. This conduct becomes even more questionable, as, if the plaintiff was really capable of purchasing the property by paying the balance amount, he would certainly have gone in to file a suit for specific performance, in stead of filing a mere suit for recovery, that too after having waited and watched the conduct of the defendant, who ultimately was compelled to dispose off the property to some other person already in January 2009.
46. Right from 05.11.2008 onwards till January 2009, the plaintiff failed to take any action by seeking a specific performance of the agreement, and instead insisted upon payment of double the earnest money. As on 05.11.2008, when the legal notice was issued by the plaintiff, the property was still with the defendant in fact until January 2009 but not even in his legal notice, the plaintiff even once, called upon the defendant to perform his part of the agreement and to get the sale deed registered.
47. This fact by itself would be quite a clinching evidence but apart from this also, there are several other circumstances on record, which not only render this case as one which the plaintiff has failed to prove, but as one, being a totally and hopelessly false case, brought up by the plaintiff against the defendant.
Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 17
48. In fact, the plaintiff has clearly admitted during his crossexamination even that he had not filed any document to show that balance amount of Rs.8,75,000/ payable by him was ready with him. In spite of these questions having been put to him in cross examination also, the plaintiff never took any steps to bring any such evidence showing his readiness to purchase the property, even though his evidence was still open.
49. In fact when the main case and the only defense of the defendant was quite clear throughout, since the issuance of their reply to the legal notice, that it was the plaintiff who was not having the money to purchase the property, the plaintiff preferred to remain silent on the aspect and did nothing ever to falsify the said defense.
50. The complete inaction of the plaintiff in the circumstances is clearly establishing the defense as proved, that in reality it was the plaintiff who was not having the financial ability to purchase the property at the relevant time, and even till the extended time, and he only cooked up a story to wriggle out of the agreement.
51. Not only this but plaintiff failed to bring any supporting documentary evidence on record relating to his plea regarding the description of property in Khasra no. and regarding the nonissuance of NOC by the authorities. He could not produce any documentary evidence to establish that there was a ban on registry of property in Khasra No.243.
Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 18
52. Though the question put to PW1 during crossexamination regarding the sale of the same property to Mr. Ravinder Kumar Gupta by the defendant after the deal with the plaintiff had failed, was for some reasons disallowed as being not relevant, but with due respect, the question of the sale of the same property to another person became most relevant in view of the plea taken by the plaintiff for nonexecution i.e. impossibility of performance of the agreement on account of no consent being there from the authorities. If the same property could have been sold by the defendant to another person vide a duly registered Sale Deed, how the plaintiff could say that there was a ban on registry of properties in the said area. In that respect, the question was quite relevant, and could have been put to the PW1. Even so, the fact remains on record as established by Ex.DW2A that the same property i.e. bearing No.1997/156 had been sold off by the defendant to one Mr. Ravinder Kumar Gupta in January 2009.
53. Plaintiff/PW1 further set upon a destructive course full of falsehood and self contradictory replies, one after, in his crossexamination another when he even denied having received any reply to his own demand notice dated 05.11.2008, in stark contradiction to the fact that the plaintiff had himself tendered in his own examination in chief, the reply to the said notice, the reply being dated 10.11.2008 as Ex.PW1/3 and in fact even a rejoinder had been sent by the plaintiff which was exhibited by the plaintiff Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 19 as Ex.PW1/4. The plaintiff replied that since he had not received any reply to his notice, he did not know that defendant had extended the time for execution of the Sale Deed.
54. Through and through, in the face of his own documentary evidence that exists on record and the lack of evidence which the plaintiff was very well expected to bring on record, throughout but chose to sit tight and failed to lead on the aspect of his financial ability to purchase the property, and also the lack of evidence and the aspect of his own plea of the alleged ban on registration of sale of properties in the area, lack of evidence, which otherwise could easily have been brought by the plaintiff, first and foremost in view of the constant and consistent defense throughout, even prior to filing of the suit being well known to the plaintiff, there remain hardly any doubt that the agreement did not fail on account of the defendant.
55. The testimony of the PW2, a witness who had admitted to have come to court at the instructions of the counsel for plaintiff, the evidentiary value of the said witness, can well be understood. His lack of impartiality and objectivity stood established by his very first reply made during the crossexamination.
56. Further on the merits, his oral evidence on the point that he came to know from the office of SubRegistrar that No Objection Certificate is not being issued in respect of Kh. No.243 and his further reply that it was so informed verbally can hardly Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 20 be said to be having any evidentiary value worth its name being a hearsay evidence, that too in respect of matters purely relating to record of the office of SubRegistrar, which could have been easily made available and is rejected outright. This fact was even brought to the notice of the said witness that no such document had been brought on record showing that there was any ban on the registration of the Sale Deed in Kh. No. 243 but in spite of that, the plaintiff did not opt to bring the relevant documentary evidence on record and thus, it is evident that the version brought by the plaintiff was absolutely false to the hilt.
57. It was even put to the said witness that a Sale Deed had been executed with respect to the same property by the defendant in favour of another person, ultimately by brining to his attention, the entire complete particulars of registration of the said document, and all that the witness answered was that he had no personal knowledge of the dealings of defendant, without appreciating the point of putting of the said fact to him during crossexamination.
58. As already discussed above, the Ex.DW2/A a fully registered document as established by DW2 being the record clerk present from the office of the SubRegistrar, proved the due registration of the documents, not only DW2/A but also Ex.DW2/B, both being Sale Deeds duly registered, one in favour of the defendant, prior in time and the Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 21 other executed by defendant in favour of a third person after the deal failed, later in point of time, being in respect of one and the same property, bely the entire case of the plaintiff as brought to court.
59. In fact in the testimony of the DW1, the defendant in her reply in the cross examination regarding her having sold off the portion of property for a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/ to another person as against the deal with plaintiff having been for a sum of Rs.10,25,000/, the DW1 explained it that it was a compulsion that they had to give Bhath(dowry gifts/dowry articles) in the marriage of her Bhanji (niece). Rather, it has further strengthened the stand of the defense that on account of conduct of the plaintiff and his failure to get the Sale Deed registered by paying up balance amount, he made the defendant put to loss as they had to sell the property at much lower price on account of financial compulsion.
60. It has come to notice during her crossexamination that one of her replies being that she sold the property for a sum of Rs.3,30,000/ as "the registry of the said property was not permissible in the said area" but however, later on in her reply of the same witness she stated that it is incorrect to suggest that registration of property in Kh. No.243 was not permitted, clarifies the position i.e. the first reply too being perhaps only Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 22 as a typographical mistake, at the most, since the stand of the defendant is quite clear and consistent throughout.
61. In fact going through the entire record what transpires is that Kh. No. of the property was not being relevant as the properties had already been given urban numbers and the property was being sold only upon description of the said numbers, the number being as 1997/156.
62. In fact, DW1 as well as DW2 have withstood the test of crossexamination well and as such there is no better tool to arrive at the truth than the anvil of cross examination and the plaintiff has not been able to create any dent into the credibility of the said witness DW1.
63. As regards the crossexamination of DW2, his replies are not conclusive either way, as against the entire documentary evidence on record brought by the defendant.
64. In view of the above discussion, Issue no.1 as well as Issue no.3 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE No.2: "Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred U/S 74 of Indian Contract Act? OPD"
Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 23
65. No submissions were made at all either by ld. counsel for defendant or ld. counsel for plaintiff on this issue during the course of final arguments. Even otherwise, going by the provisions itself, same would not even be any more relevant in view of the findings on the issues No.1 & 3 above and which is only the reason that no submissions were even made by ld. counsels for parties on the said issue.
66. In the present case, the plaintiff was one of who was complaining of the breach of the contract and he has failed to prove the breach as having been committed by defendant and in fact the plaintiff himself having been proved to have been responsible for the breach, through and through, in fact the provisions of the said Section more would not be applicable even in the given facts and the circumstances. Issue no.2 is accordingly, disposed off as infructuous.
ISSUES No.4 & 5
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of rupees four lacs from the defendants? OPD"(to be read as OPP) "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP"
67. In view of the findings on the main issues being Issues No.1 & 3 being Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini 24 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant, plaintiff is clearly not entitled to receive any amount from the defendant whatsoever. Issues No.4 & 5 are disposed off accordingly against the plaintiff.
ISSUE No.6: Relief
68. In view of the entire above detailed discussion, it is concluded that plaintiff has not only miserably failed to prove his case, in fact he has brought an absolutely false case to the court and in the result, suit is dismissed with costs of Rs.30,000/ payable to the defendant, which may be recovered by the defendant by way of execution and without filing any separate suit.
Decree sheet be drawn.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court (SUJATA KOHLI)
today i.e. 31.08.2012 (ADJ/WEST/DELHI)
Sh. Suresh Chand Vs. Smt. Manisha Saini