Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. In reply the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the suit seeks refund of the monies paid to the defendants and it does not seek specific performance of the Agreement to Sell; therefore all that the plaintiff needs to show is whether the monies paid the plaintiff and received by the defendants were pursuant to the Agreement to Sell. He relies upon an Agreement to Sell and a Receipt filed by the plaintiff clearly evidences the signature of defendant No.1 acknowledging that Rs.15.00 lacs was received by him on 27.6.2009 as part payment of Rs.60.00 lacs against the purchase made on 17.1.2008. The learned counsel submits that this document is good enough for the suit to be decreed. Additionally, he submits that the defendants have tried to mislead the Court by a bald denial of the existence of the Agreement although they had written a letter to the Regional Manager, UPFC on 12.11.2007 wherein they have acknowledged that the plaintiff was the purchaser of the suit property and they wanted to settle the mortgage with the UPFC. However, the said document is not on record. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has handed over a copy of the same to the Court. He submits that there is no specific denial of the document. Instead the receipt acknowledges the acceptance of monies by the defendants, therefore the suit ought to be decreed. He relies upon a judgement of this Court in M/s. Delhi Book Store v. K.S. Subramaniam AIR 2006 Delhi 206, which inter alia, held:

8. From the aforesaid discussion, what emerges is that there is no clear admission of the receipt of the Rs.15.00 lacs from the plaintiff by the defendant. On the contrary, there is denial of the same by the defendant albeit in the rejoinder to the application for leave to defend. For a decree in a money suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC, the Court would need to see if there is a clear admission on record of such monies having been received by the defendant. Even the letter written by the defendant to the UPFC on 02.11.2007 refers to Mr. Amit Khera, i.e., the present plaintiff, only as a probable/prospective buyer. There is no clear admission of the property either having been sold or of any monies having been received by the defendant with regard to any sale transaction. Furthermore, the Agreement to Sale dated 17.01.2008 has too many blank spaces in the body of its text, in any case, it has been denied by the applicant, therefore, it would have to be proven through evidence. The purported receipt of Rs.60.00 lacs in cash by respondent No.1 is on less than half a sheet of paper and does not bear a Revenue Stamp on it.