Delhi District Court
Meenu Upadhyay vs Kanwar Pal Singh on 5 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH-EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS 229/2016
CNR No DLNE01-000957-2016
MEENU UPADHYAY
WIFE OF RAJU UPADHYAY
RESIDENT OF C-5/19
YAMUNA VIHAR
DELHI-110053
....PLAINTIFF
V
1. KANWAR PAL SINGH
SON OF KISHAN PAL SINGH
RESIDENT OF C-5/134
YAMUNA VIHAR
DELHI-110053
2. HARISH KUMAR
SON OF B. K. DASS
RESIDENT OF C-10/85
YAMUNA VIHAR
DELHI-110053
(ORDERED TO BE DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 03.11.2014)
3. NEELAM RANI
WIFE OF KANWAR PAL SINGH
RESIDENT OF C-5/134
YAMUNA VIHAR
DELHI-110053
(ORDERED TO BE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 25.11.2014)
PRESENT CONTESTING DEFENDANTS ARE AS UNDER
1. KANWAR PAL SINGH
SON OF KISHAN PAL SINGH
2. NEELAM RANI
WIFE OF KANWAR PAL SINGH
RESIDENTS OF C-5/134
YAMUNA VIHAR
DELHI-110053
......DEFENDANDS
CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 1/21
INSTITUTION: 17.05.2013
ARGUMENTS: 23.09.2020
JUDGMENT:05.10.2020 SUIT FOR RECOVERY AND DAMAGES FOR RS 32,35,000/-
(RUPEES THIRTY TWO LAKHS THIRTY FIVE THOUSANDS) JUDGMENT
1. Agreement of sale is the base document on which the sale deed is drafted. An agreement of sale constitutes the terms and conditions of sale of a property by the seller to the buyer which includes proposed sale consideration and date of its payment. It being an important document in the sale transaction enables process of sale to go through without any hurdles. The terms and conditions included in the agreement of sale must be understood thoroughly by concerned parties and should be obeyed till execution of sale deed. Sale deed is the document prepared at the time of full payment made by the buyer and when the actual transfer of the property takes place. The plaintiff on basis of Agreement to Sell filed present suit for recovery of Rs. 32,35,000/- and pleaded as under:-
The plaintiff after negotiations entered into an Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 with the defendants in presence of Harish Kumar (original defendant no
2) in respect of the property bearing no C-5/134, Yamuna Vihar, Illaqa Shadara, 110053 measuring 35 sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property") owned by the defendants and paid Rs. 10,00,000/- as an earnest money with assurance that the suit property is free from encumbrances. The defendants only produced photocopies of title documents and assured the plaintiff to produce original title documents of the suit property as early as possible as title documents were stated to be kept in a bank locker in safe custody. The plaintiff paid additional amount of Rs. 22,35,000/- to the defendant no1 vide receipt dated 26.09.2012. The defendant no 1 in first week of January, 2013 requested the plaintiff further three months to execute terms and conditions of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 to which the plaintiff has agreed. The plaintiff subsequently came to know that the suit property was mortgaged with LIC Housing Finance Limited. The plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant no 1 and Harish Kumar whereby terminated Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 and asked the defendant no 1 to return Rs. 32,35,000/- and legal notice was replied by the defendant no 1 CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 2/21 vide reply dated 28.03.2013 and Harish Kumar(original defendant no 2). The plaintiff being aggrieved filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.32,35,000/- against the defendants and prayed as under:-
a. Directing the present defendant no 1 and 2 to pay the plaintiff an amount of Rs. 32,35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs and Thirty Five Thousands).
b. Directing the present defendant no 1 and 2 to pay pendente lite interest and future interest to the plaintiff @ 18% from the date of institution of the suit till realization of payment. c. Damages in term of the clause 5 of the agreement to sell dated 23.08.2012 or such damages this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
d. Direct the present defendant no 1 and 2 to pay the costs of present litigation to the plaintiff.
e. Pass any such further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
2. The defendants filed respective written statement and contested the claims of the plaintiff. The defendants in preliminary objections stated that the present suit is misleading, misconceived and without any cause of action. The defendants, joint owners of the suit property, entered into an Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 with the plaintiff to sell the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,02,35,000/- to be paid on or before 25.01.2013. The plaintiff paid Rs. 10,00,000/- on 23.08.2012 and Rs. 22,35,000/- on 26.09.2012 (total Rs. 32,35,000/-) as earnest money to the defendants and balance Rs. 70,00,000/- was to be paid on or before 25.01.2013 at time of execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not pay balance amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- before 25.01.2013. The defendants informed the plaintiff and her husband that the suit property is mortgaged with LIC Housing Finance Limited which would be redeemed by paying loan amount before execution of sale deed. The defendants paid loan dues of Rs. 31,40,890/- on 27.09. 2012 and the suit property was redeemed from mortgage besides release of original documents on 11.10.2012 which were shown to the plaintiff. The defendants on basis of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 entered into another agreement for purchase of property bearing no C-2/187, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi- 110053 for sale consideration of Rs. 76,00,000/- and paid Rs. 6,50,000/- as earnest money while balance sale consideration was to be paid till 31.01.2013. The plaintiff did not pay balance sale consideration of Rs. 70,00,000/- till 25.01.2013 and did not come to Registrar Office on 25.01.2013 for registration of sale deed despite requests and reminders. The CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 3/21 defendants were always ready and willing to perform their part of contractual obligation. The plaintiff is a defaulting party and did not perform her part of contractual obligation under Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012. The plaintiff and her husband sought more time for payment of balance of sale consideration and as such the defendants extended time for payment of balance sale consideration till 14.03.2013. The defendant no 1 also sent a letter dated 07.03.2013 to the plaintiff for payment of balance sale consideration and execution of sale deed. The plaintiff instead of doing needful sent a legal notice dated 13.03.2013 whereby cancelled Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012. The defendant no 1 under compulsion wrote a letter dated 28.03.2013 to the plaintiff whereby the defendant no 1 conditionally agreed to return earnest money. The defendants are entitled to forfeit earnest money as they suffered losses due to breach of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012. The defendants on reply on merits denied other pleas taken by the plaintiff.
3. The original defendant no 2 Harish Kumar who was ordered to be deleted as one of the defendants vide order dated 03.11.2014 also filed written statement and in preliminary objections stated that suit is bad for misjoinder of original defendant no 2. No cause of action ever arisen in favour of the plaintiff qua original defendant no 2. The original defendant no 2 on reply on merits stated that he only signed Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 as a witness as both parties were known to him.
4. The plaintiff filed the replications to respective written statement of the defendants wherein reasserted and reaffirmed the previous stand.
5. The plaintiff along with suit filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The defendant no 1 vide order dated 17.05.2013 was restrained from creating any kind of third party interest in the suit property. The interim order was made absolute vide order dated 12.07.2013. The defendant no 1 filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacation of interim order dated 17.05.2013 which was made absolute vide order dated 12.07.2013. The interim orders dated 12.07.2013 and 17.05.2013 were vacated vide order dated 24.04.2014. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for decree on admissions which was dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2015. Vide order dated 23.07.2016 it was observed that the defendants added counter claim without permission of the court and without paying court fee. The defendants through counsel vide order dated 20.12.2016 were allowed to withdraw counter claim.
6. Vide order dated 20.12.2016 following issues were framed:-
CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 4/21
1. Whether the agreement dated 23.08.2012 was violated and not complied with due to act and conduct of the plaintiff himself and if so, what are its consequences? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 32,35,000/- as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, and if so at what rate and for which period? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages as claimed for in the agreement or any other damages? OPP
5. Relief.
7. The plaintiff examined her as PW1 and tendered affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A wherein referred documents which are Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/7. It was observed vide proceedings dated 21.02.2017 that documents Ex. PW1/3, Ex. PW1/5 and Ex. PW1/6 are not available on record and even not produced subsequently. The plaintiff also filed affidavit of another witness Raju Upadhyay but he did not appear as witness. The plaintiff's evidence was ordered to be closed vide order dated 16.04.2019.
The defendants examined the defendant no1 as DW1, Pawan Kumar as PW2 and the defendant no 2 as DW3 who tendered their respective affidavits which are Ex.DW1/A, Ex.DW2/A and Ex.DW3/A. The defendant no 1 relied on documents which are Ex. DW1/B to Ex. DW1/L. The evidence of the defendants was ordered to be closed vide order dated 13.02.2020.
8. Sh. Virender Singh Panwar, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sh. S. S. Chaudhary, Advocate for the defendants submitted written arguments which are considered. The counsel for the plaintiff also advanced oral arguments. Record perused.
The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff has proved case by leading appropriate evidence and referred Sunil Sehgal V Chander Batra & Others, 223 (2015) DLT 334 and Versatiles Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. V Karan Singh, 245 (2017) DLT
398. The counsel for the defendants argued that the present suit is not maintainable and cited Chagalvarya V Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853.
9. The burden of proof in civil trial is the obligation on the plaintiff that the plaintiff would adduce evidence that proves his claims against the defendant and is based on preponderance of the probabilities. Under Indian law, until and unless an exception is created by law, the burden of proof lies on the person making any claim or asserting any CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 5/21 fact. A person who asserts a particular fact is required to affirmatively establish it. Relevant provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 dealing with burden of proof are produces as under:-
101. Burden of proof.--
Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
102. On whom burden of proof lies.--
The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.
103. Burden of proof as to particular fact.--
The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.--
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
The Supreme Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder V Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & another,VI(2003)SLT307 observed that whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil for testing of 'proved', 'disproved' and 'not proved', as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is one and the same. A fact is said to be 'proved' when, if considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of a particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. It was observed in A. Raghavamma & another V Chenchamma & another, AIR 1964 SC 136, there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof: burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. It was observed in Rangammal V Kuppuswami and others, Civil Appeal No 562 of 2003 decided on 13 th May, 2011 by the Supreme Court observed that burden of proof lies on the person who first asserts the fact and not on the one who denies that fact to be true. The responsibility of the defendant to prove a fact to be true would start only when the authenticity of the fact is proved by the plaintiff. In Anil Rishi V Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558 it has been held that the burden of proving the facts rests on the party who substantially asserts the CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 6/21 affirmative issues. This view was also accepted in M/S. Gian Chand & Brothers and Another V Rattan Lal @ Rattan Singh, (2013) SCR 601.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER ISSUE NO 1 AND 2
1. Whether the agreement dated 23.08.2012 was violated and not complied with due to act and conduct of the plaintiff himself and if so, what are its consequences? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 32,35,000/- as prayed for? OPP Issue no 1 and 2 shall be decided by common finding as they are related and interconnected.
10. The plaintiff to prove her case deposed in affidavit Ex. PW1/A tendered in evidence that the plaintiff entered into an Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) with the defendants in respect to the suit property owned by them with assurance that the suit property is free from encumbrances. The plaintiff paid Rs. 10,00,000/- on 23.08.2012 and Rs. 22,35,000/- vide receipt dated 26.09.2012 Ex. PW1/2 as earnest money. The suit property was found to be mortgaged with LIC Housing Finance Limited. The plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 13.03.2013 Ex. DW1/H to the defendant no 1 and Harish Kumar(original defendant no 2) whereby terminated Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 and asked the defendant no 1 to return Rs. 32,35,000/- and said notice was replied by the defendant no 1 vide handwritten note dated 28.03.2013 Ex. PW1/4 and Harish Kumar(original defendant no 2) vide reply Ex. PW1/7. The plaintiff as PW1 in cross examination deposed that she contacted the defendant no 1 on several occasions prior to 23.01.2013 for supply of original documents for execution of sale deed but the defendant no 1 failed to show title documents. The plaintiff as PW1 denied suggestions that she intentionally did not pay balance sale consideration to the defendants due to recession in property prices after August 2012 or that letter Ex.PW1/4 got executed from the defendant no 1 on 28.03.2013 forcibly or that the plaintiff did not perform her part of the duties under Agreement Ex.PW1/1.
11. The defendants in respective affidavit Ex. DW1/A and Ex. DW3/A tendered in CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 7/21 evidence deposed that the defendants agreed to sell the suit property vide Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,02,35,000/- to be paid on or before 25.01.2013. The plaintiff paid Rs. 10,00,000/- on 23.08.2012 and Rs. 22,35,000/- on 26.09.2012 (total Rs. 32,35,000/-) as earnest money. The plaintiff did not pay balance sale consideration before 25.01.2013 and did not come to Registrar Office on 25.01.2013 for registration of sale deed. The suit property was mortgaged with LIC Housing Finance Limited which was redeemed on 11.10.2012 as the defendants paid loan amount of Rs. 31,40,890/- on 27.09.2012 vide receipt Ex. DW1/C and certificate Ex. DW1/D. The plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 13.03.2013 Ex. DW1/H whereby cancelled Agreement to Sell dated 23.08.2012. The defendant no 1 under compulsion wrote a letter dated 28.03.2013 Ex. PW1/4 to the plaintiff whereby the defendant no 1 conditionally agreed to return earnest money. The defendants are entitled to forfeit earnest money. The defendant no 1 as DW1 in cross examination deposed that he disclosed to the plaintiff about mortgage of the suit property with LIC Housing Finance Ltd at time of execution of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) but he never intimated to the plaintiff in writing about redemption of mortgaged of the suit property. The defendant no 1 denied suggestions that he sought extension of three months from the plaintiff in the month of January 2013 as he was not having arrangement for an alternate accommodation or that Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) lapsed due to his default or that he concealed material fact of mortgage of the suit property with the LIC Housing Finance Ltd or that no letter dated 07.03.2013 was ever sent to the plaintiff. The defendant no2 as DW3 in cross examination admitted that fact about mortgage of the suit property with LIC Housing Finance Ltd was not mentioned in Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) and denied suggestion that the plaintiff was not conveyed about mortgage of the suit property to LIC Housing Finance Ltd. The defendant no 2 sent information in writing to the plaintiff regarding the redemption of mortgage of the suit property. The defendant no 2 denied suggestions that Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) was extended for a period of three months on her request or that the Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B)could not be executed due to her lapses. The defendant no 1 wrote a letter to the plaintiff for return of the earnest money.
CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 8/21
12. Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 deals with compensation for breach of contract where penalty is stipulated. It reads as under:-
74. Compensation for breach of contract where penalty stipulated for:- When a contract has been broken, if a sum is named in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach, or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or, as the case may be, the penalty stipulated for.
It is necessary to consider whether section 74 applies to stipulations for forfeiture of amounts deposited or paid under the contract. The expression "the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty" comprehensively applies to every covenant involving a penalty whether it is for payment on breach of contract of money or delivery of property in future or for forfeiture of right to money or other property already delivered. Duty not to enforce the penalty clause but only to award reasonable compensation is statutorily imposed upon courts by Section 74. In all cases, therefore, where there is a stipulation in the nature of penalty for forfeiture of an amount deposited pursuant to the terms of contract which expressly provides for forfeiture, the court has jurisdiction to award such sum only as it considers reasonable, but not exceeding the amount specified in the contract as liable to forfeiture. Section 74 declares the law as to liability upon breach of contract where compensation is by agreement of the parties predetermined or where there is a stipulation by way of penalty. Section 74 does not confer a special benefit upon any party; it merely declares the law that notwithstanding any term in the contract predetermining damages or providing for forfeiture of any property by way of penalty, the court will award to the party aggrieved only reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount named or penalty stipulated. The jurisdiction of the court is not determined by the accidental circumstance of the party in default being a plaintiff or a defendant in a suit. Use of the expression "to receive from the party who has broken the contract" does not predicate that the jurisdiction of the court to adjust amounts which have been paid by the party in default cannot be exercised in dealing with the claim of the party complaining of breach of contract. The court has to adjudge in every case reasonable compensation to which the plaintiff is entitled from the defendant on breach of the contract. Such compensation has to be ascertained having regard to the conditions existing CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 9/21 on the date of the breach.
13. The Supreme Court of India in Fateh Chand V Balkishan Das, 1964 SCR (1) 515 regarding section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 observed as under:-
The section is clearly an attempt to eliminate the somewhat elaborate refinements made under the English common law in distinguishing between stipulations providing for payment of liquidated damages and stipulations in the nature of penalty. Under the common law a genuine pre-estimate of damages by mutual agreement is regarded as a stipulation naming liquidated damages and binding between the parties: a stipulation in a contract in terrorem is a penalty and the Court refuses to enforce it, awarding to the aggrieved party only rea- sonable compensation. The Indian Legislature has sought to cut across the web of rules and presumptions under the English common law, by enacting a uniform principle applicable to all stipulations naming amounts to be paid in case of breach, and stipulations by way of penalty.
Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act deals with the measure of dam- ages in two classes of cases
(i) where the contract names a sum to be paid in case of breach and
ii) where the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty......The measure of damages in the case of breach of a stipu-
lation by way of penalty is by S. 74 reasonable compensation not ex- ceeding the penalty stipulated for. In assessing damages the Court has, subject to the limit of the penalty stipulated, jurisdiction to award such compensation as it deems reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case. Jurisdiction of the Court to award compensation in case of breach of contract is unqualified except as to the maximum stipulated; but compensation has to be reasonable, and that imposes upon the Court duty to award compensation according, to settled principles. The section undoubtedly says that the aggrieved party is entitled to receive compensation from the party who has bro- ken the contract, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused by the breach. Thereby it merely dispenses with proof of "actual loss or damages"; it does not justify the award of compensation when in consequence of the breach no legal injury at all has resulted, because compensation for breach of contract can be awarded to make good loss or damage which naturally arose in the usual course of things, or which the parties knew when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach.
14. The Supreme Court in subsequent decisions took different views. The Supreme Court in Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills and Others V Tata Air Craft Limited, 1969 (3) SCC 522 elaborately discussed the principles emerged from the expression "earnest money CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 10/21 which re as under:-
1. It must be given at the moment at which the contract is concluded.
2. It represents a guarantee that the contract will be fulfilled or, in other words, "earnest" is given to bind the contract.
3. It is part of the purchase price when the transaction is carried out.
4. It is forfeited when the transaction falls through by reason of the default or failure of the purchaser.
5. Unless there is anything to the contrary in the terms of the contract, on default committed by the buyer, the seller is entitled to forfeit the earnest.
In Maula Bux V Union of India, 1970 (1) SCR 928, it was held that forfeiture of earnest money under a contract for sale of property-movable or immovable-if the amount is reasonable does not fall within Section 74. The forfeiture of a reasonable amount paid as earnest money does not amount to imposing a penalty. But if forfeiture is of the nature of penalty, Section 74 applies. In Delhi Development Authority V Grihstrapana Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., 1995 Supp (1) SCC 751, the Supreme Court following the judgment in Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills held that the forfeiture of the earnest money was legal. In V. Lakshmanan V B.R. Mangalgiri and others, (1995) Suppl. (2) SCC33, the Supreme Court held that the respondents are entitled to forfeit the entire amount when the contract fell through by the default committed by the appellant. The Supreme Court took similar views in Housing Urban Development Authority and another V Kewal Krishan Goel and others, (1996) 4 SCC 249 and Videocon Properties Ltd. V Dr. Bhalchandra Laboratories and others, (2004) 3 SCC
711. In Satish Batra V Sudhir Rawal, Civil Appeal No. 7588 / 2012 decided on 18th October, 2012 the question come up for consideration was whether the seller is entitled to forfeit the earnest money deposit where the sale of an immovable property falls through by reason of the fault or failure of the purchaser. The Trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the defendant is entitled to retain the amount of earnest money since the plaintiff had failed to pay the balance amount. The High Court after placing reliance on Fateh Chand took the view that the seller is entitled to forfeit only a nominal amount and not the entire amount. The Supreme Court after analyzing earlier judgments delivered by the Supreme Court held that the seller was justified in forfeiting earnest money as per the relevant clause since the earnest money was primarily a security for the due performance of the agreement and, consequently, the seller is entitled to forfeit the entire deposit. It was observed as CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 11/21 under:-
Earnest money or deposit also, thus, serves two purposes of being part payment of the purchase money and security for the performances of the contract by the party concerned, which paid it. Law is, therefore, clear that to justify the forfeiture of advance money being part of 'earnest money' the terms of the contract should be clear and explicit. Earnest money is paid or given at the time when the contract is entered into and, as a pledge for its due performance by the depositor to be forfeited in case of non-
performance, by the depositor. There can be converse situation also that if the seller fails to perform the contract the purchaser can also get the double the amount, if it is so stipulated. It is also the law that part payment of purchase price cannot be forfeited unless it is a guarantee for the due performance of the contract. In other words, if the payment is made only towards part payment of consideration and not intended as earnest money then the forfeiture clause will not apply.
15. The High Court of Delhi in Bhuley Singh V Khazan Singh & Others, RFA no.422/11 refers the principles laid upon by the Supreme Court in Fateh Chand and observed that the appellant/plaintiff could claim a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents/defendants which was paid under the agreement to sell as an earnest amount on the basis of the undisputed position that the respondents/defendants did not plead or prove that loss had been caused to them so as to entitle them to forfeit the amount paid to them under the Agreement to Sell. It was further observed that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Fateh Chand makes it more than clear that a mere breach of contract by a buyer does not entitle the seller to forfeit the amount as received unless loss is proved to have been caused to the prospective sellers/defendants/respondents. The principles laid down in Fateh Chand that forfeiture of a reasonable amount is not penalty but if forfeiture is of a large amount the same is in the nature of penalty attracting the applicability of Section 74; have been recently reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of V.K.Ashokan V CCE, 2009 (14) SCC 85. The Court did not accept argument raised on behalf of the respondents/defendants that it was the duty of the appellant/plaintiff to plead that no loss was caused to the respondents/defendants and therefore the amount could not have been forfeited because once it is admitted that the respondents/defendants have received an amount, and it was their/defendants'/respondents' case that they were entitled to forfeit such amount, it was for the respondents/defendants therefore to plead and prove that they could forfeit such an amount. Thus unless, there are pleadings and proof as to entitlement to forfeit the amount on account of loss being caused there cannot be a CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 12/21 forfeiture in view of the ratio of Fateh Chand's case.
16. The High Court of Delhi in M.C. Luthra V Ashok Kumar Khanna, RFA No. 780/2017 decided on 27.2.2018 with reference to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Fateh Chand and as explained by the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Kailash Nath Associates V Delhi Development and Another, (2015) 4 SCC 136 held that there cannot be forfeiture of an amount paid under an agreement to sell once no loss is pleaded and proved by a proposed seller under an agreement to sell. For refunding of the amount of earnest money/advance price paid under the agreement to sell courts are entitled to invoke the powers under Order VII Rule 7 CPC. It was also observed that the ratio of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of five Hon'ble judges of the Supreme Court in Fateh Chand's would prevail and as explained in Kailash Nath Associates. The High Court of Delhi in Rajbir Singh & Another V Jaswant Yadav, RFA No 404/2018 decided on 14th May 2018 after analyzing law observed that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment which directs refund of the advance price/earnest money paid to the appellants/defendants by the respondent/plaintiff under the subject agreement to sell inasmuch as there is no dispute that appellants/defendants have not pleaded or proved any loss caused to them on account of any alleged breach of the agreement to sell by the respondent/plaintiff. (See Also Sudesh Kakkar V Sh. Satish Mittal, RFA No.216/2017 decided on 30 July, 2018; Arun Khanna V Sumit, RFA No.1014/2018 decided on 17 December, 2018)
17. It is reflecting from respective pleadings and evidence including cross examination of the plaintiff and the defendants that the defendants are joint owners of the suit property and entered into an Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) with the plaintiff whereby the plaintiff has agreed to purchase the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,02,35,000/-. The plaintiff paid Rs. 10,00,000/- as an earnest money and balance sale consideration of Rs. 92,35,000/- was to be paid on or before 25.01.2013. The plaintiff further paid Rs. 22,35,000/- to the defendants vide receipt dated 26.09.2012 Ex. PW1/2. The defendant no 1 in response to legal notice dated 13.03.2013 Ex. DW1/H executed a handwritten note dated 23.08.2013 Ex. PW1/4 whereby the defendant no 1 agreed to refund earnest money paid by the plaintiff.
18. The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendants did not disclose about mortgage of the suit property at the time of execution of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 13/21 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) and fact of mortgage was also not mentioned in Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B. The counsel for the defendants argued that Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) was prepared by husband of the plaintiff who admittedly is a deed writer. The defendants informed the plaintiff and her husband that the suit property is mortgaged with LIC Housing Finance Ltd which shall be redeemed by paying loan amount prior to execution of sale deed. The defendants paid loan dues amounting to Rs. 31,40,890/- on 27.9.2012 to LIC Housing Finance Ltd and as such the suit property was redeemed from mortgage before 25.01.2013 as proved from receipt Ex. DW1/C and certificate Ex. DW1/D and original title documents were shown to the plaintiff and her husband.
19. The plaintiff specifically pleaded and deposed that she entered into an Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) after being assured that the suit property is free from encumbrances. The defendants stated and deposed that the plaintiff was informed about mortgage of the suit property with LIC Housing Finance Ltd before execution of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B). The said plea of the defendants is not supported and corroborated by the evidence led by the contesting parties. The defendant no 1 as DW1 although in cross examination deposed that he had disclosed to the plaintiff about mortgage of the suit property with LIC Housing Finance Ltd at time of execution of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) and denied suggestion that this fact was never disclosed to the plaintiff but the defendant no 2 as DW3 in cross examination admitted that mortgage of the suit property with the LIC Housing Finance Ltd was not mentioned in Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) but it was conveyed to husband of the plaintiff and denied suggestion that she never conveyed about mortgage of the suit property to the husband of the plaintiff. The evidence led by the defendants is not convincing, sufficient and adequate to prove that the defendants informed the plaintiff about mortgage of the suit property with LIC Housing Finance Ltd. at time of execution of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B).
20. The plaintiff in cross examination only admitted that the defendant no1informed on date of execution of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex.
PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) that the original title documents are lying in bank locker.
CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 14/21 The cross examination of the plaintiff only proved that the defendants only informed the plaintiff about lying of title documents in a bank locker. The plaintiff was not cross examined that she was told and informed about mortgage of the suit property with LIC Housing Finance Ltd. The cross examination is not merely a technical rule of evidence but it is a rule of essential justice as it serves to prevent surprise at trial and miscarriage of justice. It was observed in A.E.G. Carapiet V A. Y. Derderian, AIR1961Cal.359 that whenever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential and material case in the cross examination, it must follow that he believed that the testimony given, could not be disputed at all. The Supreme Court in M.B Ramesh V K.M Veeraje, 2013 (2) RCR Civil 932 also reiterated same legal view. Non cross examination of plaintiff established that the plaintiff was not informed about mortgage of the suit property at time of execution of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B).
21. The perusal of Clause 5 of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) reflects that at time of execution of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) the suit property was informed to be free from all kind of encumbrances. Clause 5 is reproduced verbatim as under:-
That the first party hereby assures the second party that the above mentioned property is free from all sorts of encumbrances, burden, decree, sale, mortgage/loan with all banks, gifts, liens, liabilities, attachment, stay order, injunction orders, legal flaw, litigation or transfer etc. and there is no legal defect in the title of the first if proved otherwise or if the first party is deprived of the said property under the sale or party thereof owing to the above reason, the first party will be liable to indemnify the second party in full or in parts to the extent of loss sustained by the second party with costs and damages etc. It is proved that the suit property was already mortgaged with LIC Housing Finance Ltd at time of execution of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) but this fact was not mentioned in Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) and not disclosed to the plaintiff. The defendant no 1 repaid Rs. 31,40,890/ as outstanding loan to LIC Housing Finance Ltd vide receipt dated 27.09.202012 Ex. DW1/C and certificate dated 11.10.2012 Ex. DW1/D towards redemption of mortgage of the suit property only after execution of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex.
CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 15/21 P1 and Ex.DW1/B) . Had the defendants informed about mortgage of the suit property with LIC Housing Finance Ltd to the plaintiff then this fact would have been mentioned in Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B). The defendants were employed in government service and it was also their duty to be assured about accurate mentioning of terms and condition in Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B). Although the defendant no 1 redeemed mortgage before 25.01.2013 i.e. before proposed date of execution of sale deed in pursuance of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) but the plaintiff was justified in not paying balance sale consideration to the defendants who had concealed material fact regarding mortgage of the suit property. The plaintiff did not breach Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B)
22. The counsel for the defendants argued that the defendants on basis of Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) entered into another Agreement to Sell dated 17.10.2012 Ex. DW1/E to purchase property bearing no. C-2 /187, Yamuna Vihar Delhi for sale consideration of Rs 76,00,000/- and paid Rs. 6,50,000/- as earnest money. The defendants could not pay balance sale consideration on or before stipulated day as the plaintiff did not pay balance sale consideration and due to this reason earnest money paid by the defendants was forfeited which caused pecuniary loss to the defendants. The plaintiff did not come to the Registrar Office for execution and registration of sale deed on 25.01.2013. The defendant no 1 also sent a letter dated 07.03.2013 Ex. DW1/F to the plaintiff to pay balance sale consideration but the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 13.03.2013 Ex. DW1/H whereby cancelled Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) on the false and concocted grounds. The defendant no 1 was compelled to write a letter dated 28.03.2013 Ex. DW1/I to the plaintiff whereby the defendant no 1 conditionally agreed to return earnest money. The earnest money is liable to be forfeited. The counsel for the plaintiff in arguments attacked Agreement to Sell Ex. DW1/E and argued that an Agreement to Sell Ex. DW1/E was entered into with Sunita Goyal but the defendants neither produced Sunita Goyal as witness nor initiated any legal proceedings for recovery of earnest money stated to be paid to Sunita Goyal which proved that Agreement to Sell Ex. DW1/E is a forged and fabricated and the defendant could not prove any loss.
CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 16/21
23. The defendants regarding loss suffered by them due to nonpayment of balance sale consideration by the plaintiff alleged that they paid Rs. 6,50,000/- as earnest money for purchase of another property bearing no C-2/187, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053 which was forfeited by seller as the defendants could not pay balance sale consideration due to nonpayment of balance sale consideration by the plaintiff. The defendants also paid 85,000/- towards loan account closing charges, service tax etc. as charged by LIC Housing Finance Ltd as reflected from letter dated 27.09.2012 Ex. DW1/J. The defendants suffered tax loss of Rs. 54,700/- during assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 as reflected from Income Tax Returns Ex. DW1/K and Ex. DW1/L besides suffering other losses. The defendants to prove loss suffered by them due to breach of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) examined Pawan Kumar as DW2 who in affidavit Ex. DW2/A tendered in evidence deposed that the defendant no 1 paid Rs. 6,50,000/- as earnest money to Sunita Goyal for purchase of property bearing no C-2/187, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053 on execution of Agreement to Sell dated 30.10.2012 Ex. DW1/E in his presence and presence of Manish. The earnest money of Rs. 6,50,000/- was forfeited as the defendant no 1 could not pay balance sale consideration. DW2 Pawan Kumar in cross examination deposed that the defendant no.1 neither send any legal notice for recovery of earnest money of Rs.6,50,000/- nor filed suit for recovery of earnest money against Sunita Goyal. The entire earnest money was paid in cash and denied suggestions that no earnest money was paid in his presence or that Agreement to Sell Ex.DW1/E is a false and fabricated document.
24. The defendants did not specifically plead payment of Rs. 6,50,000/- to Sunita Goyal as earnest money in presence of DW2 Pawan Kumar and another witness namely Manish. This was a relevant fact which was required to be mentioned in plaint. In Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes V Erasmo Jack de Sequeria, (2012)5SCC370, the Supreme Court laid stress on purity of pleadings in civil cases. It was observed that pleadings are extremely important in civil cases and in order to do justice, it is necessary to give all details in the pleadings. This view was again reaffirmed in A. Shanmugam V Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam, (2012)6SCC430. The defendant no 2 in cross examination admitted that she did not file suit for recovery of earnest money against Sunita Goyal and denied suggestion that she filed false and fabricated Agreement to Sell stated to be executed with Sunita Goyal. The CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 17/21 defendants could not prove by leading convincing evidence that they paid Rs.6,50,000/- as earnest money to Sunita Goyal which was forfeited due to efflux of time. The other losses as alleged by the defendants are not directly related to breach of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) although the defendant no 1 denied suggestion that Income Tax Returns Ex. Ex. DW1/K and Ex. DW1/L are forged and fabricated documents. The defendants did not lead evidence to prove that market value of the suit property was depreciated after alleged breach of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1 (Ex. P1 and Ex. DW1/B). The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant No.1 sent a letter dated 28.03.2013 Ex. PW1/4 to the plaintiff whereby agreed to return Rs.32,35, 000/ which is also admitted by the defendant No 2 in crossexamination. Admittedly that the defendant no 1 wrote a letter dated 28.03.2013 Ex. PW1/4 whereby the defendant no 1 has agreed to return earnest money back to the plaintiff. The defendants alleged that letter dated 28.03.2013 Ex. PW1/4 was written under compulsion but there is no evidence to prove that the defendant no 1 wrote letter Ex. PW1/4 out of compulsion and under pressure. It is not proved that the defendants suffered loss due to alleged breach of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B) and nonpayment of balance sale consideration by the plaintiff on or before 25.01.2013. The defendants are not entitled to forfeit earnest money. The plaintiff is entitled to claim recovery of Rs. 32,50,000/- paid as earnest money to the defendant. Issue no 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, and if so at what rate and for which period? OPP
25. The plaintiff prayed for grant of pendente lite interest and future interest @ 18% from the date of institution of the suit till realization of payment. Interest is generally reduced in writing at the time of the money is loaned. Legal interest is prescribed by the statue. Conventional interest is agreed upon by the parties themselves. Interest is premium paid for use of money. Interest is defined in Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which reads as under:-
Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 18/21 court may, in the decree, order interest at such a rate as the court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit,[ with further interest at such rate not exceeding six percent, per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum], from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit.
The Supreme Court in C.K. Sasankan V The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Civil Appeal No 1317 of 2009 decided on 27th February, 2009 observed that interest should be granted on sound legal principles. It was observed as under:-
The quantum and rate of interest which the appellant in the present case is entitled to would be in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Code. According to the provisions of Section 34 of the Code interest is to be awarded at a reasonable rate and on the principal amount. It is needless to point out that although the amount of interest from the date of filing of the suit till the date of the decree and thereafter till realisation is in the discretion of the court as is confirmed by the use of the word `may' but such discretion has to be exercised by the court properly, reasonably and on sound legal principles and not arbitrarily and while doing so the court is also to consider the parameter, scope and ambit of Section 34 of Code.
The Supreme Court in State of Haryana & others V M/S S.L.Arora & Company, Civil Appeal No.1094 of 2010 decided on 29th January, 2010 observed as under:-
Payment of interest arises in different circumstances. It can be the consideration paid by a borrower to a lender for use of the money lent or made available by the lender. It can be the return given by a bank, financial institution or a company on amounts deposited or in- vested with them by a customer or constituent. It can be the compen- sation paid by a person who withholds or defaults in paying an amount or in discharging a liability, when it is due and payable. In- terest may be payable in pursuance of a contract, or a provision in a statute, or the fiat of a court of tribunal. It is usually quantified in terms of a percentage of the `principal' or the `investment' or the `amount of liability'. Interest unless otherwise specified, refers to simple interest, that is interest paid on only the principal and not on any accrued interest.
The plaintiff is only entitled for nominal interest under given facts and circumstances of case. The plaintiff is awarded simple interest @ 6% per annum from institution of present suit till decree of the suit and from decree of suit till realization of CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 19/21 decretal amount. Issue no 3 is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages as claimed for in the agreement or any other damages? OPP
26. A contract is a legal promise to perform certain obligations. If a party breaks a promise then the other party to the contract might suffer losses due to non-performance of the obligation. The Contract Act, 1872 lays down certain rules to determine the amount of compensation upon the breach of a contract. Damages is the entitlement of the suffering party to receive compensation from the party who breaks the contract for losses sustained due to the breach. The suffering party cannot claim compensation for indirect or remote losses/damages. The plaintiff is claiming damages in terms of clause 5 of Agreement to Earnest Money/Bayana dated 23.08.2012 Ex. PW1/1(Ex. P1 and Ex.DW1/B). The plaintiff did not prove that she suffered loss as sale deed/title deed in respect of the suit property was not executed by the defendants. There is no whisper in the plaint that the plaintiff has suffered financial losses due to non-execution of the sale deed in respect of the suit property in her favour by the defendants. The affidavit Ex.PW1/A tendered by the plaintiff in the evidence is also silent regarding the losses allegedly suffered by the plaintiff due to non-execution of sale deed in respect of the suit property in her favour by the defendants. The plaintiff also did not cross-examine either of the defendants that the plaintiff has suffered financial losses due to the omission of the defendants. There is absolutely no material which can reflect about the financial losses suffered by the plaintiff due to failure of the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff admitted that she is not ready to purchase the suit property although denied suggestion that she intentionally did not pay balance sale consideration to the defendants as the property prices in vicinity had fallen down after August 2012. There is no evidence to prove that any loss was suffered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff as such is not entitled to claim damages either special or nominal from the defendants. Issue no 4 is accordingly decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO 5
RELIEF
CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 20/21
27. The entire journey of the judicial process is to find the truth from the pleadings, documents and evidence of the parties. Truth is the basis of the justice. The Supreme Court in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu V State of A.P., (1996) 9 SCC 548 observed that from the ancient times, the constitutional system depends on the foundation of truth. In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh V State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 it was observed that right from the inception of the judicial system it has been accepted that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes underlying existence of Courts of justice. The Supreme Court in Dalip Singh V State of UP, (2010)2SCC114 observed that truth constituted an integral part of the justice delivery system. In Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes V Erasmo Jack de Sequeria, (2012)5SCC370, it was observed that the truth should be guiding star in the entire judicial process. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. This view was reiterated in A. Shanmugam V Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam. In view of findings on issue no 1 to 3 the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and a decree of Rs.32,35,000/- along with cost and simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till realisation is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by Sudhir Kumar JainANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN Sudhir Location: Karkardooma
COURT ON 05TH OCTOBBER, 2020 Kumar Jain Courts
Date: 2020.10.05
14:38:47 +0530
(DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN)
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS 229/16 MEENU UPADHYAY V KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANOTHER 21/21