Delhi District Court
Smt. Veera Devi vs Sh. Rohit Sharma on 10 February, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. ARCHANA SINHA
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CENTRAL) 03, THC, DELHI
Date of institution : 28.11.2005
Judgment reserved on : 05.02.2015
Judgment delivered on : 10.02.2015
Suit No.146/2012 Unique Case ID No.02401C1076772005
(Old No. 171/2005)
Smt. Veera Devi, W/o Dr. Raj Kumar,
R/o. H. No. F223, Central Bank Street,
Lado Sarai, New, Delhi - 110030 ....Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Rohit Sharma, S/o Sh. S. B. Sharma,
R/o H. No.D166, Freedom Fighter Enclave,
Neb Sarai, New Delhi ....Defendant
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a suit for specific performance of contract with consequential relief of permanent injunction or in the alternative Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 1 2 for recovery of Rs.83,050/ filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. In nutshell, the case of the plaintiff as brought out in the plaint is that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement dated 08.02.2002 for the sale of a flat bearing No.S4, measuring 78.5 square yards on second floor of property bearing No. 250/6, ward No.VI, Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to 'the suit property') for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,30,000/ and on such agreement a sum of Rs.55,000/ was paid as an earnest money/part payment vide cheque No.777997 dated 27.02.2002 for an amount of Rs. 50,000/, duly encashed along with a cash of Rs.5,000/, and the receipt of the Bayana was acknowledged in writing by the defendant vide receipt dt. 21022002.
Further that it was agreed that the balance sale consideration shall be paid within 5 months from the date of agreement and the defendant will hand over the physical vacant possession of the flat and the sale documents shall be Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 2 3 executed and registered at the same time.
3. It is averred that as per the agreement, the plaintiff had arranged the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.4,75,000/ within the stipulated period to pay the balance sale consideration amount to the defendant and the defendant was asked to execute the sale deed, get the same registered and to hand over the possession of the flat but the defendant started avoiding the plaintiff on one or the other pretext, despite the plaintiff reminded the defendant from time to time at regular intervals about the terms and conditions of agreement and requested him to perform his part of obligation in the contract but he did not pay any heed, and that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 25.11.2004 to call upon the defendant to perform his part of the contract but on receipt of such notice, in his reply he acknowledged the receipt of the amount of Rs. 55,000/ but claimed more than 1 lac over and above the balance amount agreed, then also the plaintiff contacted the defendant personally on 02.01.2005 and asked him to receive such balance sale consideration and to execute & register the Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 3 4 sale deed and to hand over the physical possession of the flat but the defendant neither executed nor registered the sale deed nor handed over the possession of flat nor also agreed to repay the earnest money/part payment received by him, rather he replied that he would sell and transfer the said flat to some third party. Hence the suit.
4. The defendant, in the contra pleadings in the written statement, has raised preliminary objections that there is no cause of action, the suit is time barred and suit is barred within the provisions of Specific Relief Act submitting that there existed no contract/agreement to sell qua the suit property. Also that the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees.
5. On merits of the case, it is pleaded that there was no agreement to sell the suit property as stated in the plaint and the earnest money paid was forfeited on expiry of stipulated period. It was specifically denied that the plaintiff has performed his part of the obligation of the contract or that she Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 4 5 was ever willing to perform her part of obligation and that the defendant kept waiting for more than the prescribed period but due to the reluctance and nonpayment of the balance amount, by the plaintiff, the defendant has already disposed of the property in question to the third party and the suit of the plaintiff has become infructuous and warrants the dismissal.
6. Replication has been filed on behalf of plaintiff to the written statement filed by the defendant, in which the averments made in the written statement have been denied and those made in the plaint have been reiterated as correct.
7. On the basis of the pleadings vide order dated 06.09.2007, the following issues were framed :
(i). Whether the suit is bad for the lack of cause of action? OPD
(ii).Whether the suit is bad under Order 7 R 3 CPC? OPD
(iii).Whether the suit is barred under section 41 of the Specific Relief Act? OPD
(iv).Whether the parties entered into agreement to sale dated
08.02.2002? OPD
(v).Whether the plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform its part of the contract? OPP Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 5 6
(vi).Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the Specific performance of the contract? OPP
(vii).Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery? If so, to what sum? OPP
(viii).Relief.
8. For proving its case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1, who produced his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.PW1/1, and exhibited the following documents viz. The agreement to sell dated 08.02.2002 is Ex.PW1/A. The receipt is Ex.PW1/B. The legal notice is Ex. PW1/C. The postal receipt is Ex. PW1/D. & The reply of the legal notice is Ex. PW1/E. Plaintiff has also examined Sh. Vinod Singh as PW2, who produced his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.PW2/A and exhibited the document viz. the passbook issued by Punjab National Bank is Ex. PW2/1.
Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 6 7
9. Thereafter, in support of his defence, the defendant has examined himself as DW1, who produced his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex. DW1/A and exhibited the following documents viz.
The photocopy of the receipt of Rs.50,000/ is Ex. DW1/1 and the same is now marked as mark A. The reply of legal notice dated 22.12.2004 is Ex. DW1/2. The postal receipts are Ex. DW1/3 & 4 (colly.).
10. I have gone through the records meticulously and have given my careful consideration to the contentions of Sh. R. S. Malhan, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Shashi Shankar, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
11. My issuewise findings are as below:
Issue No. (1) Whether the suit is bad for the lack of cause of action? OPD The onus to prove this issue was laid on the defendant.
Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 7 8
12. The Defendant has raised a preliminary objection in Para 2 of its contra pleadings/Written Statement that the suit is liable to be rejected as there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant but apart from the mere plea, the defendant has not uttered even an iota of evidence to substantiate this plea and Ld. Counsel for the defendant has submitted that the plaintiff could not prove any contract ever executed between the parties, thus, there exists no cause of action.
13. The plaintiff has submitted that the defendant has admittedly acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 55,000/ as an earnest money for the sale of the suit property and as the sale documents were not executed nor the earnest money was refunded, thus, the cause of action arose on such refusal.
14. So far as the phrase 'cause of action' is concerned, it is described by the apex court in Sidramappa Vs. Raja Shetty, AIR 1970 SC 1059, wherein it is opined that :
"'Cause of action' means the 'cause of action for which the suit was brought'. Cause of action is a cause of Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 8 9 action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit."
Further, a cause of action means : 'a cause of action means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded' (Reliance is placed on the observations made in the case titled as Swami Atmanand vs. Swami Bodhanand, AIR 2000 SC 2392).
15. It is observed that the basis of the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit is the agreement to sell the suit property and the existence of such agreement to sell has been questioned by the defendant but the receipt of earnest money for an amount of Rs. 55,000/ is not being denied nor it is stated that such amount was ever refunded rather the defendant has raised the dispute to the claim on the ground that such amount was forfeited on expiry of the stipulated period within which the Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 9 10 plaintiff was to pay the balance consideration amount for the sale of the suit property which she failed, thus on the basis of facts, it cannot be said that there exists no cause of action in the suit as there was a dispute on the set of facts that has arisen regarding the specific performance of a contract of sale of the suit property or for the refund of the earnest money paid.
Moreso, the defendant except mere taking plea could not prove anything that there exists no cause of action in the suit and thus, such plea remained a mere plea.
On the contrary, the plaintiff has substantiated on facts that there exists cause of action in the suit as a dispute has been arisen as to whether these was a contract of sale of the suit property Therefore, issue no. (i) is decided in negative against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
16. Issue No. (ii) Whether the suit is bad under Order 7 R 3 CPC? OPD The onus to prove this issue was laid on the defendant. Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 10 11
17. The Defendant has raised a preliminary objection in Para 6 of its contra pleadings/Written Statement that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has not filed any site plan of the suit property and the requisite particulars so as required under Order 7 Rule 3 CPC are not furnished regarding the description of the suit property.
But apart from the mere plea, the defendant has not led any evidence to substantiate this plea, except that it was argued by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff has not described the suit property as no site plan has been filed along with plaint.
18. The plaintiff has submitted that the agreement in question is pertaining to a flat that was to be constructed and that the flat number with its measurement, floor and its municipal number has been provided to fulfill the requirement of Order 7 Rule 3 CPC and that it can not be said that the particulars required to be furnished in the plaint as per Order 7 Rule 3 CPC, were not sufficient to identify the immovable property in question. Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 11 12
19. It is observed that a technical objection has been taken by way of preliminary objection by the defendant, however, the receipt Ex. PW1/B is an admitted document vide which the defendant has agreed that an amount of Rs. 55,000/ was received in the manner detailed therein and such receipt describes the immovable property in question i.e. described as flat number S4, measuring 78.5 square yards on second floor of property bearing No.250/6, ward No.VI, Mehrauli, New Delhi and the same description has been given for the suit property in para 1 of the plaint that is sufficient to identify the suit property, with its flat number, floor and municipal number with the area with specifications to distinguish it with any immovable property and it is observed that there is no mandate of filing of a formal site plan with the plaint within the provisions of Order 7 Rule 3 CPC.
It is worth to mention that the defendant as DW1 has admitted his signatures and contents on the receipt Ex. PW1/B, admitting that the amount in the receipt was received by him towards the sale of an immovable property with the description Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 12 13 given in the receipt itself.
20. Moreso, the defendant except taking mere plea could not prove that the suit was not maintainable within the provisions of Order 7 Rule 3 CPC. On the contrary, the plaintiff has substantiated on facts regarding furnishing of proper descriptions of the immovable property in question in the plaint.
Therefore, issue no. (ii) is decided in negative and against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
21. Issue Nos. (iii), (iv) & (vi)
(iii) Whether the suit is barred under section 41 of the Specific Relief Act? OPD
(iv) Whether the parties entered into agreement to sale dated 08.02.2002? OPD
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the Specific performance of the contract? OPP These three issues are taken up together being based on the same premises and are interdependent for the findings Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 13 14 on issue No. (iv) that affects as an effect of such findings on issue Nos. (iii) & (vi). The onus to prove issues No. (iii) & (iv) was laid on the defendant, whereas for issue No. (vi), it is on the plaintiff.
22. To establish issue Nos. (iv), the defendant in para2 & 4 of his affidavitinevidence Ex. PW1/A had reiterated his pleading in his WS, has submitted that no agreement was ever signed by the defendant on 08022002 and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 55,000/ as an earnest money for the sale of the suit property for a total consideration of Rs. 6,30,000/ and that the balance amount was to be paid by the plaintiff within 5 months from the date of payment of the earnest money and that despite several requests, reminders, personal visits and legal/demand notice dated 22122004 Ex. DW1/2 and postal receipts that of Ex. DW1/3 & 4, the plaintiff did not make the balance payment, the defendant was constrained to forfeited the amount paid as earnest money and disposed of the flat.
23. It is argued on behalf of the defendant that there was no Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 14 15 agreement ever entered into on 08022002 between the parties to be asked for specific performance and thus, by application of provisions of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, the suit for specific performance is not maintainable
24. The plaintiff to contest these issues has submitted that the defendant has entered into an agreement on 08022002 for sale of the suit property and the document i.e. Agreement to Sell dated 08022002 Ex. PW1/A was prepared detailing the description of the flat, the total consideration amount as Rs. 5,30,000/ out of which an earnest money of Rs. 55,000/ was paid on 21022002 and the balance amount of Rs. 4,75,000/ was to be paid by 27072002 & also other terms and conditions of the contract were mentioned therein, but the defendant deliberately with malafide intentions did not sign such agreement to sell and such intentions are clear from his reply Ex. PW1/E, to the legal notice Ex. PW1/C, that he has raised the consideration amount from Rs. 5,30,000/ to Rs. 6,30,000/ adding Rs. 1,00,000/ more than to the agreed consideration amount for the sale of the suit property. Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 15 16
25. On appreciation of the evidence of the parties, it is observed that during the cross examination, DW1 has fairly admitted that the receipt Ex.PW1/B bears his signature at Point A and that he has received a cheque of Rs.50,000/ dated 27.02.2002 drawn on PNB, Safdarjung Enclave and Rs.5,000/ in cash as part / advance payment towards the sale of the suit property.
Whereas the plaintiff as PW1 has admitted that the Agreement to Sell Ex.PW1/A does not bear the signature of Sh. Rohit Sharma, the defendant. She has also volunteered that there was 'no time' fixed for payment of balance amount and that for terms and conditions of the agreement there was only an agreement to sell Ex. PW1/A to be executed in which abovesaid details were given.
26. Thus, it is clear that it is not in dispute that on 08.02.2002, there was an exchange of offer and acceptance between the parties regarding sale of the suit property in question and that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 16 17 defendant regarding the sale of the suit property for a sum of Rs. 5,30,000/ as a consideration amount for such sale and that only in pursuance of such agreement, an amount of Rs. 55,000/ was received by the defendant from the plaintiff as a part payment / bayana vide Receipt Ex.PW1/B duly signed by the defendant & admitted that it was received for the sale of such suit property.
Further, it is an established fact that the Agreement to Sell dated 08022002 Ex.PW1/A could never been executed between the parties as one of the parties i.e. the defendant did not sign this agreement ever.
27. For an agreement to become a contract, enforceable and binding for specific performance, it is sine qua none that only the terms and conditions are settled between the parties and on such terms and conditions, the parties were adidem (at consensus), in view of the law settled in orders dated 29.02.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in I.A. No. 6507/2006 in C.S.(OS) No. 1194/2006 in case titled as Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 17 18 M/s. Round the Clock Stores Ltd. Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Entertainment Private Limited wherein it was observed that, for granting of the equitable relief of specific performance within the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, there has to be a concluded contract, oral or in writing, with certainty of its terms and the party seeking to performance of a contract must satisfy all the requirements necessary for seeking such relief in equity and in exercising discretion, it is obligatory to the court to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, conduct of the parties and the respective interests under the contract and the issues on the basis of evidence of the parties were to be determined regarding the specific relief of performance claimed by the plaintiff to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties.
28. In the abovenoted circumstances for the nonexecution of the Agreement to Sell dated 08.02.2002 Ex.PW1/A, as the document was not signed by one of the parties ( i.e. the defendant) to the Agreement for the terms and conditions stated therein the parties could not reach to consensus adidem, thus, it is safely concluded that the parties have not entered into the Agreement to Sale dated 08.02.2002. Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 18 19 Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled for equitable relief of specific performance of the Agreement, that could never been executed upon between the parties.
Therefore, Issue No. (iv) & (vi) are decided in negative, thereby against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Also, Issue No. (iii) is decided accordingly partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly in favour of the defendant that the suit is maintainable otherwise but for the relief of specific performance of the Agreement to Sell and the suit is not hit by the provisions of Sec. 41 of the Specific Relief Act.
29. Issue No. (v)
(v) Whether the plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform its part of the contract? OPP Onus to prove this issue was laid on the plaintiff. Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 19 20 No finding or observation is required for this issue as Issue No. (iv) & (vi) are decided against the plaintiff and a relief of specific performance is not available for the plaintiff, thus Issue No. (v) is decided accordingly.
30. Issue No. (vii)
(vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery? If so, to what sum? OPP Onus to prove this issue was laid on the plaintiff.
31. On appreciation of evidence on record, it is observed that the receipt of an amount of Rs.55,000/ vide Receipt Ex.PW1/B is admitted by the defendant and there is nothing on record shown that such amount was ever refunded back to the plaintiff at any point of time.
32. According to the defendant, and rather it is established on record that the agreement to sell Ex. PW1/A qua the suit property was never executed between the parties and thus, Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 20 21 the terms and conditions, mentioned therein the document Ex. PW1/A were never agreed upon to reach at consensus on particular mode of balance payment or the period of such payment or for the execution of the sale documents in favour of the plaintiff, thus, the question of forfeiture of the bayana amount duly received by the defendant on expiry of any period, or to say after five months as mentioned in Ex. PW1/A, does not arise.
33. It was the case of the plaintiff that the Receipt Ex.PW1/B was executed on 08.02.2002 against the receipt of an amount of Rs.55,000/ that has been duly received by the defendant as a bayana / part payment in pursuance of the Agreement to Sell dated 08.02.2002 that contained the terms of receipt of bayana amount on 08.02.2002 and the balance payment of consideration of Rs.4,75,000/ within five months of execution of Agreement to Sell dated 08.02.2002. The document Ex.PW1/A that is the Agreement to Sell dated 08.02.2002 contained a stipulation that the balance amount of sale consideration amount will be received on or before 27.07.2002. Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 21 22
34. But the defendant has refuted execution of any such agreement to sell dated 08.02.2002. Thus, on nonsigning of such Agreement to Sell by the defendant and on his plea that there was the Agreement to Sell dated 08022002 was never executed between the parties for the reasons that the terms of the contract of sale were never finalized between the parties. Thus, question of stipulation of five months period of payment of balance amount of sale consideration and forfeiture of the bayana amount after expiry of five months period does not arise.
35. Therefore, the defendant could not substantiate his plea that the bayana amount of Rs.55,000/ received by him was forfeited or that despite his repeated requests, the plaintiff could not pay the balance consideration amount within the stipulated period.
Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 22 23
36. Also the defendant as DW1 has deposed in Para 2 of his affidavit Ex.DW1/A that even after several requests, reminders and personal visits and legal notice dated 22.12.2004, the plaintiff did not make the payment of the balance amount, the deponent was constrained to forfeit the earnest money and disposed of the flat.
37. In support of such plea, the defendant has failed to prove through any independent evidence even an iota, that any request, reminders or personal visits were ever paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in this regard.
So far as the legal / demand notice dated 22.12.2004 Ex.DW1/2 and postal receipts that of Ex.DW1/3 & 4 are concerned, these are not the legal notice ever sent by the defendant to the plaintiff rather it was the reply to the legal notice served upon by the plaintiff on the defendant, such legal notice is Ex.PW1/C and the postal receipts of such notice was Ex.PW1/D. The documents Ex. PW1/C & D are not in dispute. Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 23 24
38. Thus, the plea of the defendant that he has sent a legal notice dated 22.12.2004 to the plaintiff asking for making the payment of the balance amount to the defendant was contrary to the records as no such legal notice dated 22.12.2004 is ever produced by the defendant on record rather, it is a matter of fact that such document was a reply to the legal notice sent by the plaintiff to the defendant.
39. Otherwise also the defendant has failed to establish on record that there was a stipulation of five months' period for payment of the balance amount of the sale consideration by the plaintiff to him for execution of the sale documents. Such stipulation was mentioned only in the document i.e. Agreement to Sell dated 08022002 Ex.PW1/A and such document is denied of its existence and also for its execution by the defendant.
40. Further, the defendant's case is that the terms of sale of the suit property were never finalized and he has even disputed the sale consideration amount submitting that the sale Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 24 25 consideration amount was not Rs.5,30,000/ rather it was Rs. 6,30,000/ and thus, any such sale consideration amount was not recorded in the Receipt Ex.PW1/B that stipulates only the amount received as part payment towards the sale of the suit property but does not mention either the total sale consideration amount nor stipulate the period of the payment of balance amount.
41. Thus, the defendant has failed to prove any fact on record regarding the time frame of payment of balance consideration amount or the stipulation of forfeiture of the bayana amount for non payment of the balance consideration amount by the efflux of time as nowhere it is being proved by the defendant that a particular period was fixed for payment of the balance consideration amount and execution of the sale documents. Rather the defendant has denied outrightly any agreement ever executed between the parties for the sale of the suit property.
42. It is worth to mention that the reply Ex.DW1/2 to the legal notice of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/C relied upon by the defendant Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 25 26 forfeiture of the earnest money / bayana amount is not binding on the parties as such legal notice cannot at all be treated as a 'contract' between the parties having any binding force on the plaintiff to be bound by such stipulation made in the reply to the legal notice served by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Rather, such reply Ex.DW1/2 is an 'acknowledgment' of the amount received by him from the plaintiff vide Receipt Ex.PW1/B to extend the period of limitation to recover such amount by the plaintiff as per law.
43. Thus, it is established on record that an amount of Rs. 55,000/ was received by the defendant from the plaintiff vide Receipt Ex.PW1/B as part payment / bayana amount for the sale of the suit property and as the contract / agreement for the sale of such property was never entered into or executed upon between the parties for non finalization of the terms of contract at any point of time, thus, the plaintiff is entitled for return / refund of such amount from the defendant and thus, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the sum of Rs.55,000/ paid by her Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 26 27 and duly received by the defendant from her.
44. Also the plaintiff is entitled for an 'interest' on the principal sum of Rs.55,000/ payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as by definition of an interest it is a 'surcharge' over the amount due and payable by someone & due to the other who for retention of such sum unlawfully made that person not able to use such money in the market and as per the principles of money multiplier, the plaintiff is entitled for an 'interest' over and above the principal sum payable to her by the defendant for the period it became due till its realization and @ 12.5 % p.a. that is the bank rate prevalent on date for the commercial loans applicable in the banks as an appropriate and reasonable rate of interest in view of provisions of Section 34 of CPC.
Thus, issue No. (vii) is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant accordingly.
Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 27 28
45. Issue No. (viii) Relief In view of the findings on issues no. (i) to (vii), the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed only to the extent of recovery of an amount of Rs.55,000/ alongwith an interest.
Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled for a money decree against the defendant for:
(i) An amount of Rs.55,000/ against the defendant along with,
(ii) An interest @ 12.5% p.a. from 08.02.2002 till its realization and
(iii) The cost to the extent of court fees and the pleader's fees, on production of the receipt/affidavit of the pleader and any other cost, that was imposed on the defendant, but was not paid during trial.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced In the open Court (Dr. Archana Sinha) 10th Day of February, 2015. Addl. District Judge (Central03) Tis Hazari Courts / Delhi 10.02.2015 Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 28 29 Suit No.146/2012 (Old No. 171/2005) Smt. Veera Devi Versus Sh. Rohit Sharma 10.02.2015 Present: Sh. R. S. Malhan, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff Sh. Shashi Shanker, Ld. Counsel for the defendant Vide separate order/judgment dated 10.02.2015, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed partly.
Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled for a money decree against the defendant for:
(i) An amount of Rs.55,000/ against the defendant along with,
(ii) An interest @ 12.5% p.a. from 08.02.2002 till its realization and
(iii) The cost to the extent of court fees and the pleader's fees, on production of the receipt/affidavit of the pleader and any other cost, that was imposed on the defendant, but was not paid during trial.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
(Dr. Archana Sinha) ADJ03/Central/Delhi 10.02.2015 Suit No.146/2012 Smt. Veera Devi Vs. Rohit Sharma 29