Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The defendants in their written statement have further alleged that the plaintiff insisted for security of the amount for Rs.5 lakhs for which have entered into agreement only on the basis of the plaintiff instructions for security purposes and the remaining balance amount of Rs.45 lakhs was not paid by the plaintiff, as they are the developers and the plaintiff has postpone to give the same in their favour and suppressed the same by the plaintiff while filing the suit against them, similarly several investors have also agree to pay Rs.50 lakhs each for commencement of apartment project by way of hand loan and all of them have paid Rs.5 lakhs each and obtained agreement of sale by promising to pay remaining Rs.45 lakhs amount with 4 installment on every six months of commencement of project and the plaintiff as well as similarly situated persons have also not paid the remaining amount as agreed on the day of registered agreement for which within a stipulated time could not able to start the construction of apartment work fastly and they sustained huge loss for non payment of remaining balance amount of Rs.45 lakhs each and availed loan from private persons and banks and completed the project. The plaintiff has already received month to month interest as well as principal amount from them for the said hand loan amount of Rs.5 lakhs which has been paid by the plaintiff and the plaintiff assured them that he will cancel the alleged agreement of sale and not come forward for cancellation, but the plaintiff has suppressed the said facts and filed the instant false suit against them.

7. The defendants in their written statement have further alleged that the alleged agreement of sale entered in between them is only for collateral purpose for the payment of advance amount of Rs.5 lakhs out of agreed amount of Rs.50 lakes, since the plaintiff is already received the entire amount which was paid together with interest from them being the developers, the said fact has been suppressed by the plaintiff and only to blackmail and to knock out valuable property and money a false suit has been filed against them and the case of the plaintiff cannot be acceptable in the eye of law and failed to cancel the agreement of sale after receipt of the amount which has been paid by the plaintiff and they were reversed their right to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court of law and authorities and denied that they have agreed to receive balance sale consideration amount of Rs.2 lakhs at the time of execution of registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and they have executed addendum to agreement of sale and further fixed 11 months time to perform their part of the agreement and they did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration amount and they were alleged that the plaintiff has suppressed the true facts and filed the false suit based on the alleged agreement of sale and he has also filed two suits against them on the basis of false alleged agreement of sale in O.S.No.4444/2016 and O.S.No.5173/2016 and the said cases are pending for consideration and the plaintiff is not having sufficient money to give the same on the date of alleged agreement and he has paid only Rs.5 lakhs in advance with respect to starting of project and for the security of the said amount has taken several documents such as GPA, on demand promissory note, consideration receipt and duly signed blank cheques which are in the custody of the plaintiff till this day and they were denied all the averments which made in the plaint and alleged that there is no subsisting contract in between them and the suit of the plaintiff is deserved for dismissal and prays for dismiss the suit with cost.

33. ISSUE NO.4 AND 5: These issues are inter-related to each other, hence in order to avoid repetition of facts and materials on record, these issues are discussed together. The defendant No.1 and 2 were appeared through their respective counsel and filed their written statement in which they took up the contention the registered agreement of sale is only for security purpose which executed by the defendant No.1 and 2 since the plaintiff had agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.50,00,000/- on 5 installments, accordingly paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cash as 1st installment and insisted to execute the documents for which entered the said agreement of sale for the security purpose and the defendants in the written statement itself they have also pleaded that they have entered the agreement of sale with the plaintiff only for collateral purpose for the payment of advance amount and they have already returned the amount which received from the plaintiff, though the plaintiff has agreed to cancel the agreement of sale, instead of cancellation has filed the instant false suit against them.

37. In the instant case also, except filing of the written statement, the defendant No.1 and 2 were not cross-examined the P.W.1 nor led their evidence or entered the witness box nor offer for their cross-examination. That is the reason why their lordship in the above said decision held if the defendants were not entered the witness box nor offer the cross-examination of the other side, the court can draw adverse inference against the defendants that the case which set up by the defendants is not correct. Therefore, the above decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the defendants were utterly failed to prove that as per the registered sale agreement dated 12.07.2012 received only Rs.5,00,000/- out of Rs.50,00,000/- and they have already paid the said amount to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff instead of cancelling the registered agreement of sale has filed the false suit against them. On the other hand, the plaintiff has proved his case through oral and documentary evidence.