Delhi District Court
Albert Peter vs Ritu Kashyap on 31 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH BALWANT RAI BANSAL,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02, SOUTH EAST,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 150/14
Albert Peter
E263, Top Floor, Greater Kailash PartI
New Delhi110048.
.......... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Ritu Kashyap
W/o Mr. Virendra Kashyap
A12, Kailash Colony, New Delhi110048.
2. Virender Kashyap
A12, Kailash Colony, New Delhi110048.
Both also at:
L1/4, Ground Floor,
Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi110016.
......... Defendants
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.9,53,250/
(RUPEES NINE LAKH FIFTY THREE THOUSAND TWO
HUNDRED FIFTY ONLY)
(a) Date of institution : 13.10.2014
(b) Date when judgment reserved : 19.08.2015
(c) Date of Judgment : 31.08.2015
JUDGMENT:
1. Brief facts as set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a freelance real estate broker. Sometimes in the month of May, 2012 the CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 1 of 21 defendants approached him for availing the services of property broker and to identify some good residential property in South Delhi. Plaintiff identified few properties developed by M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. It was agreed upon that the defendants will pay him brokerage/commission @2% of the total sale consideration of the finalized property as per market norm. The plaintiff showed the properties only after the defendants agreed to the above condition. After seeing few properties, the defendants showed their interest in buying one property bearing no. L1/4, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi developed by M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff arranged the meetings with the representatives of the builder M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. in order to negotiate the deal for the aforesaid property. A deal was struck and the plaintiff while representing both parties, negotiated the price which was settled at Rs.7,75,00,000/ as against the demand of Rs.8,39,00,000/. The plaintiff ensured that the entire set of documents as well as peaceful possession of the aforesaid property was delivered to the defendants and he also remained present at the Sub Registrar office for registration and signed the sale deed as witness of the defendants and ensured that the registration process goes smoothly without any hassle. However defendants after availing the professional services of the plaintiff refused to pay the brokerage/commission @1% which they had promised to pay to the CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 2 of 21 plaintiff against the normal 2% of total sale consideration amounting to Rs.7,75,000/. The plaintiff also sent a letter dated 19.08.2014 asking the defendants to pay his legitimate dues but of no avail. Legal notice dated 06.09.2014 was also duly served upon the defendants asking them to pay the legitimate dues to the plaintiff, but despite service, the defendants failed to comply the legal notice. Hence, the present suit.
2. The Plaintiff has prayed for recovery of Rs.9,53,250/ which includes Rs.7,75,000/ as commission and Rs.1,78,250/as interest w.e.f. 23.10.2013 till filing of the suit and pendentlite and future interest @24% per annum on the aforesaid amount along with cost of the suit.
3. The defendants contested the suit by filing the written statement contending that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as plaintiff failed to show any cause of action in his favour and against the defendants. The plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands. It is contended that plaintiff had approached the defendants in their office with his partner and they introduced themselves as broker dealing in sale/purchase of residential and commercial projects. They stated that they have been the brokers of M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. for a long time and induced the defendants to purchase one of the projects carried out by said builder CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 3 of 21 M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. at L1/4, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi in the month of June, 2012. The plaintiff had categorically told the defendants that he and his partner shall receive their brokerage charges from the builder M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. @2% being their regular brokers and they shall not charge any brokerage charges from the defendants for any deal between them. A meeting was arranged between the defendants and representatives of M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. in the presence of the plaintiff being the broker of M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. to purchase the basement and ground floor of the aforesaid property. During the negotiations, the plaintiff made it clear that he shall be receiving his brokerage/commission @2% from M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. and the defendant shall not pay anything towards the brokerage charges to the plaintiff. The plaintiff being the broker of the builder also stated that liability to deposit the service tax shall be of the builder to the concerned department for purchase of said floors. Later on, the defendants discovered that the plaintiff had never dealt with representative of M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. prior to the said deal. The deal between the defendants and representatives of M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. was finalized, however the defendants began receiving letters from M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. for deposit of service tax and the defendants felt cheated at the hands of the plaintiff and his parter to induce them to enter into the said deal as the CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 4 of 21 liability to pay the service tax was of the builder. The defendants had no choice but to continue with the said deal and the plaintiff did not extend any help in further negotiations. It is further stated that the plaintiff started demanding brokerage charges and sent the letter dated 19.08.2014 which was replied by them. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff to extort the money from the defendants while he had received the brokerage charges from the builder i.e. M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. It is contended by the defendants that plaintiff had been the broker of M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. and not of the defendants. It is denied that the defendants agreed to pay brokerage/commission @2% of the total sale consideration to the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff along with his partner told the defendants that they will charge the brokerage from the builder i.e. M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. It is denied that plaintiff got negotiated the price of deal @ Rs.7,75,00,000/. It is stated that plaintiff was never a part of such negotiation between the plaintiff and the builder and the defendants themselves negotiated the price with the builder. It is further stated that plaintiff had appeared as a witness in the sale deed being the broker of the builder and not in the capacity of broker of the defendants. It is denied that defendants had promised to pay commission @1% to the plaintiff against normal 2% of the sale consideration. It is contended that defendants have no liability to pay CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 5 of 21 the brokerage charges to the plaintiff and the present suit has been filed to extort the money from the defendants. The defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The plaintiff filed the replication in which the averments made in the plaint are reiterated and those of written statement have been been controverted.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by this court vide order dated 16.12.2014:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
3. Relief.
6. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined himself and filed evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A in which he deposed as per the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiff has also placed on record the certified copy of sale deed dated 23.10.2013 as Ex.PW1/1, letter dated 19.08.2014 as Ex.PW1/2, reply thereto as Ex.PW1/3, copy of legal notice dated 06.09.2014 as Ex.PW1/4, reply of the defendants as Ex.PW1/5.
7. On the other hand, the defendant no. 2 examined himself as DW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW1/1 wherein he has deposed more or less in terms of the written statement. CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 6 of 21
8. I have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully.
9. On the basis of material available on record, my issuewise findings are as under: Issue no. 1
10. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. From the aforesaid narration of the pleadings, it is not in dispute that a deal was struck between the defendants and M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. with respect to property bearing no. L1/4, Hauz Khas New Delhi. It is also not in dispute that initially the plaintiff was involved in negotiating the deal between the defendants and M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff claims that he negotiated the deal between the defendants and the representatives of builder M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. and, therefore, he is entitled to 1% commission on the total sale consideration amount which the defendants have not paid. While the defendants contended that the plaintiff along with his partner midway disappeared from the negotiations and it was the defendants who themselves negotiated the deal with M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd..The defendants also contended that they had not agreed to pay any commission to the plaintiff @1% or 2% as alleged, rather the plaintiff had categorically told them that he being the broker of the builder M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd will not charge anything from the CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 7 of 21 defendants but will charge his commission from the builder @2% on the total sale consideration price.
11. It is not in dispute that the property was sold by M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. to the defendants and sale deed has also been got executed. Though the defendants have raised the issue of payment of service tax which they claim that same was liable to be paid by the builder, but they had to pay the service tax, however that is not the subject matter of the present suit and is not germane to the controversy involved in the present case. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether there was any contract between the plaintiff and defendants by which defendants had agreed to pay brokerage @1% of the total sale consideration to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was required to prove that there was a contract between the parties by which the defendants had agreed to pay him the commission @1% in order to succeed in the present case.
12. The plaintiff, in order to prove its case, has examined himself as PW1 and in his examinationinchief he has reiterated the contents of the plaint. In the crossexamination, he categorically stated that he has drafted the letter dated 19.08.2014 Ex.PW1/2. He admitted that in the letter it is mentioned that he met defendants in their office at A12, Kailash Colony, New Delhi as the defendant wanted to buy some property in South Delhi. He further stated that CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 8 of 21 he had not paid service tax for the amount claimed in the present suit. He also stated that he has not dealt with M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd or the defendants prior to deal in question. He stated that he received sum of Rs. 7,75,000/ from M/s Uppal in two installments. He categorically stated that there was no contract in writing with the defendant to pay his commission or brokerage charges. Voluntarily, he said that contract was oral. He denied the suggestion that there was no contract, assurance, promise or any understanding between him and the defendants to pay any commission or brokerage charges. He admitted that he has not mentioned in his letter Ex. PW1/2 that he arranged visits to properties with the clear understanding and on firm promise and assurance of the defendants that they will pay him brokerage/commission @ 2% of total sale consideration as per market norm on or before the time of execution of title documents and registration of sale deed. He stated that the defendant has agreed to pay the brokerage at 1% in their office at A12, Kailash Colony at their first meeting. He stated that he does not remember the date and time of the said meeting. He denied the suggestion that no such meeting for payment of any brokerage or commission was ever held at any point of time between him and the defendants. He admitted that he has not raised any invoice in the sum of Rs.7,75,000/ towards his brokerage charges to the defendants so far. He denied the suggestion CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 9 of 21 that the deal between the defendants and M/s Uppal was negotiated by the defendants themselves and he did not render any service with respect of such negotiations. He further denied the suggestion that he along with partner has clarified the defendant that he shall not charge or demand any brokerage charges with respect to the deal in question from the defendants as he shall be getting his brokerage charges from M/s Uppal. He admitted that he has not mentioned in the letter Ex. PW1/2 that he arranged the meetings with the representative of the builder M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd in order to negotiate the deal for the aforesaid property.
13. From the aforesaid statement of the plaintiff in his cross examination, it has come on record that there was no contract in writing with the defendants by which defendants had agreed to pay him the commission/brokerage charges in respect of the deal between the defendants and M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. Though, the plaintiff by way of voluntarily statement stated that contract was oral, but the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that even any oral contract was ever entered into with the defendants by which they had agreed to pay him the commission or brokerage charges.
14. The plaintiff in the plaint though has claimed that the defendants approached him for availing his services as property broker as they wanted to buy residential property in South Delhi. But, the CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 10 of 21 defendants in the written statement categorically denied that they had approached the plaintiff for availing his services as property broker and contended that it was the plaintiff who along with his partner approached them at their office at A12, Kailash Colony, New Delhi and induced them to enter into the deal with the builder M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. with the sole purpose of obtaining his commission/brokerage charges from the builder. The plaintiff before instituting the present suit, sent a letter dated 19.08.2014 Ex. PW1/2 to the defendants demanding his commission/brokerage charges from them which was also replied by the defendants to which there is no dispute. In the said letter Ex. PW1/2, the plaintiff has averred that he met with the defendant in his office at A12, Kailash Colony, New Delhi as defendant wanted to buy some residential property in South Delhi. In the crossexamination also, the plaintiff has admitted that the defendant has agreed to pay the brokerage at 1% in their office at A12, Kailash Colony at their first meeting. Meaning thereby, the plaintiff admits that he had approached the defendants at their office at A12, Kailash Colony, New Delhi.
15. Though, in the normal circumstances, it would not have been of much significance as to whether the plaintiff met the defendants at their office or the defendants approached the plaintiff, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it assumes CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 11 of 21 significance because the defendants have taken a categorical stand that plaintiff along with his partner had come to them in their office and induced them for investing the money in one of the projects carried out by M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. of which they claimed to be their brokers. The defendants further claimed that the plaintiff had categorically told them that he shall get his commission or brokerage charges from the said builder in case deal is negotiated and finalized between the said builder and the defendants.
16. In view of admission on the part of the plaintiff in his letter Ex. PW1/2 as well as in the crossexamination as discussed above, the contention of the defendants that it was the plaintiff who had approached the defendants in their office in respect of deal in question is substantiated.
17. Admittedly, there is no written contract between the parties. Since onus to prove that the defendants had agreed to pay the commission or brokerage charges @ 1% of the total sale consideration to the plaintiff was on the plaintiff, it was obligatory on the plaintiff to prove that contract was oral. But the plaintiff has miserably failed to lead any evidence to show that there was any oral understanding between the parties by which it was agreed that he would charge commission from the defendants if the deal is finalized between the defendants and the builder M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 12 of 21
18. The defendants have also taken a categorical stand that the plaintiff has received the commission/brokerage charges from the builder M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. This fact has also been admitted by the plaintiff in his crossexamination when he states that he has received a sum of Rs. 7,75,000/ towards brokerage charges from the builder M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. in two installments. The defendants have further claimed that the plaintiff was not entitled to get anything from them towards brokerage charges and he himself had told the defendants at the time of striking the deal that he would get his commission from the builder only. In these facts, the plaintiff should have examined the witness from M/s Uppal Housing Pvt Ltd. to prove his claim that he has negotiated the deal between the builder and defendants and further that the builder was not only responsible for making payment of commission or brokerage charges to him but he was also entitled to get commission from the defendants with respect to deal in question. However, the plaintiff has not done so and did not take any steps to examine any witness from M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. to prove the aforesaid claim.
19. There is also discrepancy in the stand taken by the plaintiff. In the plaint, in para 2, the plaintiff has averred that he arranged visits of the defendants to the properties with a clear understanding and on firm promise and assurance of the defendants CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 13 of 21 that they will pay to him brokerage/ commission @ 2% of the total sale consideration of the finalized property. Thereafter, in para 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff asserts that the defendants refused to pay to the plaintiff his brokerage/ commission @1% which they had promised to pay to the plaintiff against the normal 2% of the total sale consideration amounting to Rs. 7,75,000/. Again, while appearing in the witness box as PW1 he stated in his crossexamination that the defendant has agreed to pay the brokerage at 1% in their office at A12, Kailash Colony at their first meeting.
20. As such, it appears that the plaintiff himself is not sure as to what was the commission or brokerage charges allegedly payable by the defendant, whether it was @ 1% or 2% of the total sale consideration of the finalized property. Even in the crossexamination, he could not tell the date and time of the meeting when the defendant had allegedly agreed to pay him the commission @1% of the total sale consideration amount.
21. It is also pertinent to note that though the plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that he arranged meeting between the defendants and representatives of builder M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. in order to negotiate the deal and also organized meetings of the defendant with the builder on each scheduled date for payments and further ensured handing over of entire set of documents to the defendants and got the CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 14 of 21 peaceful vacant possession of the property from the builder to the defendants. But in his crossexamination, he admitted that he has not mentioned all these facts in his letter Ex. PW1/2. He categorically admitted that he has not mentioned in his letter Ex. PW1/2 that he even got the payment terms of sale purchase of the property negotiated and finalized between both the parties and the same were reduced to writing in the sale deed. He further admitted that he has also not mentioned in his letter Ex. PW1/2 that he as a broker represented both the parties and negotiated the price which was settled by the parties.
22. The plaintiff has also averred in the plaint that he remained present at the SubRegistrar Office for registration and signed the sale deed as witness for the defendants and ensured that the registration process went on smoothly without any hassle. However, the defence of the defendants throughout in the written statement has been that the plaintiff had appeared before the Sub Registrar Office as broker of the builder M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd and signed the sale deed being broker of said builder and not in capacity of the broker of the defendants. The plaintiff in the replication has not controverted the said fact. Furthermore, the defendant no. 2 while appearing in the witness box as DW1 has reiterated the said averment in his examination in chief. But, in the crossexamination of DW1, no suggestion was given by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that plaintiff had CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 15 of 21 appeared as a witness in the Sale Deed on behalf of the defendants being their broker and not as a broker of builder. DW1 has stated that Mr. Manchanda may have appeared as a witness from his side in the sale deed.
23. Ld. Counsel for defendants has also vehemently argued that the plaintiff has not paid the service tax on the commission/brokerage charges which was allegedly accrued to him by way of deal between the defendants and M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. and it again shows that the plaintiff was not to get any commission from the defendants.
24. In this regard, the testimony of PW1 is again contradictory. In his crossexamination, at first instance, he stated that he has paid service tax for the transaction between M/s Uppals Builders and defendants. But in the later part of his crossexamination he categorically admitted that he has not paid service tax for the amount claimed in the present suit.
25. It may be noted here that the plaintiff even has not raised the invoice of the commission upon the defendants which he is claiming by way of present suit. As per Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, the invoice has to be raised within 30 days from the date of completion of taxable services and as per Rule 6, the plaintiff was required to deposit the service tax. However, the plaintiff has issued CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 16 of 21 the legal notice after lapse of 10 months from the date of execution of sale deed between the defendants and M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd and it again substantiates the claim of the defendants that present suit is an after thought because had there been any contract between the parties by which plaintiff was entitled to get commission charges from the defendants he would not have waited for about one year. There is no explanation as to why the plaintiff kept mum for 10 months and did not take any steps for recovery of alleged commission due to him by the defendants in respect of the deal and the plaintiff had issued the legal notice after lapse of 10 months from the execution of sale deed.
26. Though, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that payment of service tax is not an issue and if the plaintiff has not paid service tax, appropriate action shall be taken by the concerned tax authorities against the plaintiff. Of course, if the plaintiff has not paid the service tax for the transaction in question, the plaintiff may invite penalty from the concerned tax authorities and payment of service tax is not subject matter in the present case, but the non payment of service tax is one of the corroborative fact to substantiate the contention of the defendant that there was no agreement between them to pay any commission charges to the plaintiff. Had there been any such agreement and the plaintiff was entitled to commission of Rs. 7,75,000/ from the defendants as well @ 1% of total sale CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 17 of 21 consideration as claimed by him, then he would have paid service tax or would have shown the same in service tax return which was mandatory requirement of law.
27. From the evidence placed on record, the plaintiff has not been able to prove that there was any contract, written or oral, by which the defendants had agreed to pay commission/brokerage charges @ 1% of the total sale consideration to him.
28. On the other hand, the defendants have proved their defence as taken in the written statement. DW1 has deposed in his examination in chief that plaintiff had approached him and his wife in their office at A12, Kailash Colony, New Delhi with his partner and introduced themselves as broker of builder namely M/s Uppal Housing and induced them to purchase one of the project carried out by M/s Uppal Housing at L1/4, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi. DW1 further deposed that plaintiff had categorically told them that he and his partner shall receive their brokerage charges from the builder i.e. M/s Uppal Housing @ 2% being their regular brokers and they shall not be charging any brokerage charges from them for any deal between the defendants and M/s Uppal Housing in respect of said project. He further deposed that a meeting was conveyed between them and representatives of M/s Uppal Housing in the presence of plaintiff and his partner being the broker of M/s Uppal Housing in respect of the CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 18 of 21 said project and during the course of negotiations it was categorically made clear by the plaintiff and his partner that they shall be receiving their commission @ 2% from the said builder and he and his wife shall not pay anything towards the said broker charges to the plaintiff or to his partner. DW1 further deposed that he later on came to know that the plaintiff had never dealt with the representatives of M/s Uppal Housing prior to said deal and disappeared midway and therefore he and his wife themselves negotiated on terms and conditions with the representative of said builder in respect of the said deal. DW1 further categorically stated that the deal to purchase the property was finalized between him and his wife and the representatives of M/s Uppal Housing and there was no contract or assurance or understanding or any obligation to pay any such brokerage charges to the plaintiff in respect of said deal. DW1 further deposed that the plaintiff has never been their broker and as such they were never under a liability to pay any brokerage charges to the plaintiff and the present suit has been filed to harass him and his wife and to extort money from them.
29. In the crossexamination of DW1, nothing can be extracted to impeach his testimony and the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has not put any question on the aforesaid assertions made by DW1 in his examination in chief and aforesaid testimony of DW1 has gone CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 19 of 21 unrebutted and uncontroverted. Law is well settled that if a witness is not crossexamined on a particular point that part of his testimony is deemed to be admitted by the other party. Reliance may be placed upon Satyender Kumar Sharma Vs. Jitender Kudsia 2006 (1) RCR 207 .
30. Though a suggestion was put to DW1 that the defendants have deliberately raised the issue of service tax to avoid the liability to pay the brokerage charges to the plaintiff, which was denied by the witness. However, no liability of payment of service tax was one of the plea raised by the defendants in the written statement. In the written statement, the defendants have not admitted the liability to pay commission or brokerage charges to the plaintiff. The defendants have categorically denied that there was any contract between the parties to pay commission charges to the plaintiff by them. The defendants have stated that plaintiff along with his partner approached and induced them to invest in one of the project carried out by builder M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. but later on plaintiff and his partner disappeared and they negotiated the deal themselves directly with the representatives of M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd, but later on the defendants started receiving letters from the said builder about payment of service tax which they were not liable to pay and in this context the defendants have raised the plea of service tax.
CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 20 of 21
31. In view of aforesaid discussions, since the testimony of DW1 has gone unrebutted and uncontroverted and he has not been crossexamined at all on the material aspects and further the plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence to show that there was any contract between the parties by which defendants had agreed to pay commission charges to the plaintiff @ 1% of total sale consideration, the plaintiff cannot be said to be entitled to the suit amount. Hence, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Issue No. 2
32. When the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount from the defendant, question of entitlement to interest does not arise. Hence, this issue is also decided against the plaintiff.
RELIEF
33. As a sequel to my findings under Issue No. 1 & 2, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal)
on 31st August, 2015 Addl. District Judge 02 (SouthEast)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS No. 150/14
Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 21 of 21
CS No. 150/14
Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr.
31.08.2015
At 4.00 PM
Present: None for the plaintiff.
Counsel for the defendants.
Vide my separate judgment of even date, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi 31.08.2015 CS No. 150/14 Albert Peter Vs. Ritu Kashyap & Anr. Page 22 of 21