Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. If issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to com­ ply with its obligation under the contract? OPP

5. Whether sale of the suit land during the pendency of the suit to defendant no. 3 is hit by the doctrine of lis pendence? If so to what effect?

8. To prove its case plaintiff examined four witnesses. Ms. Anjali Sehgal stepped in witness box as PW1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit and relied upon documents :

If issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to comply with its obligation under the contract? OPP

30. Since issue no.2 is decided against the plaintiff, no findings are required to be given on this issue.

Rising Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Chitru & ors Page no. 28 of 30 Whether sale of suit land during the pendency of the suit to defendant no.3 is hit by the doctrine of lis pendence? If so to what effect?

31. In view of findings of issue no. 2 above, the sale of suit property in favour of defendant no.3 is not hit be rule of lis pendence, since no concluded contract ever took place inter se between plaintiff on one part and defendant no. 1 on other part.

RELIEF:­

32. Admittedly, the defendant no. 2 had received a sum of Rs.1,20,000/­ against receipts Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/7 from plaintiff company. No evidence has been led by defendants to show as to how the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,20,000/­ can be forfeited because in the absence of loss being caused the said amount paid cannot be forfeited as per the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Fateh Chand Vs. Bal Kishan Das, AIR 1963 SC 1405. Therefore, the plaintiff company would be entitled to a money decree for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/­ with pendentelite and future interest @ 8% per annum from defendant no.2 namely Mehar Singh.