Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit Kukreja vs Shweta Sachdeva on 14 March, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
-1-
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-2552-2022 (O&M)
Reserved on : 21.02.2024
Pronounced on : 14.03.2024
AMIT KUKREJA ....Appellant
VERSUS
SHWETA SACHDEVA ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Advocate
Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate
Ms. Priyanka Kansal, Advocate and
Mr. Pawandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Advocate
Mr. Viraj Gandhi, Advocate and
Mr. Vinayak Chawla, Advocate for the respondent.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
defendant-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016
passed by the Trial Court and judgment and decree dated 24.08.2022 passed
by the First Appellate Court.
2. The plaintiff-respondent in the present case had put in
appearance on 29.11.2022, thus, waiving service.
3. With the consent of learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the defendant-appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
plaintiff-respondent, the matter is being taken up for final hearing.
Photocopies of the records of the Courts below were called for vide order
dated 02.05.2023.
integrity of this judgment/order.
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
4. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
respondent filed a suit for specific performance, mandatory injunction and
permanent injunction. Relief of specific performance was sought qua the
agreement to sell dated 26.10.2010. Mandatory injunction was sought
directing the defendant-appellant to furnish the original documents of title
pertaining to the suit property. Consequential relief of permanent injunction
was sought restraining the defendant-appellant from alienating the suit
property in any manner to any other person except the plaintiff-respondent.
Alternative relief of recovery of Rs.1,34,40,000/- along with interest @ 12%
per annum from the date of payment till realization was also sought. It was
averred in the plaint that the plaintiff-respondent is a proprietor-business
woman of M/s Ozone Steam Sauna and Pools, Gurugram which she handles
along with her husband, namely, Sh. Rakesh Sachdeva. In all their dealings
with the defendant-appellant, the plaintiff-respondent has been helped by her
husband, who had been present with her throughout. It was averred that in
the year 2010 the plaintiff-respondent was introduced to the defendant-
appellant through the proforma defendants (given up on 05.09.2014). The
defendant-appellant projected that he was the owner in possession and
having absolute rights of the land and residential construction being No.260,
Deer Wood, Block-S, Nirvana Country, South City-II Phase-II, Gurugram
(hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). The defendant-appellant
expressed his desire to sell the suit property to the plaintiff-respondent.
Accordingly, an agreement to sell was entered into by the defendant-
integrity of this judgment/order.
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
appellant in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on 26.10.2010. The total sale
consideration was settled at Rs.2,60,00,000/-. The plaintiff-respondent paid
an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as earnest money by way of two cheques and
the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,45,00,000/- was to be paid in the
following manner :
a) Rs.45,00,000/- on or before 28.10.2010
b) Rs.15,00,000/- on or before 28.03.2011
c) Rs.1,85,00,000/- at the time of signing of the final
documents for sale.
It was further averred that the schedule of payment could not be
adhered to strictly and the defendant-appellant accepted payments not
strictly as per the schedule without any protest and, therefore, the schedule
was waived by the defendant-appellant. It was further averred that since the
plaintiff-respondent was taking some time to arrange for the funds,
therefore, though the contract date was 11.04.2011 for registration of the
sale deed, however, it was agreed by the defendant-appellant that he would
give some more time to the plaintiff-respondent in case she was unable to
arrange the funds by 11.04.2011. However, vide clause 4 of the agreement to
sell, the defendant-appellant agreed to keep the agreement to sell in effect till
such time the plaintiff-respondent was able to arrange the funds provided
that she would pay interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment. It
was further averred that the plaintiff-respondent paid an amount of
Rs.1,34,40,000/- on different dates as mentioned in para No.7 of the plaint.
integrity of this judgment/order.
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
It was further averred that by 11.04.2011 the plaintiff-respondent was able to
pay the principal amount of R.1,29,00,000/- to the defendant-appellant.
Since there was no specific extension, the plaintiff-respondent could take
more time to conclude the agreement but she would have to pay interest @
18% per annum on the delayed payment, as agreed. It was further averred
that a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- was paid between 11.04.2011 to 30.06.2011 as
interest on the delayed payment. The last installment of the interest was paid
on 30.06.2011. It was further averred that it was the requirement as per
clause 7 of the agreement to sell that the defendant-appellant would execute
all such documents as may be required and necessary in connection with the
suit property. It was further the case that the plaintiff-respondent told the
defendant-appellant that she had applied for a bank loan so as to pay for the
purchase of the suit property and the plaintiff-respondent's further stand was
that the defendant-appellant had not given any receipt qua the cash payments
stating that he would give the same shortly. However, only one receipt dated
16.05.2011 was given to the plaintiff-respondent to the effect that he had
received a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- 'as discussed'. It was further the case set up
that the defendant-appellant accepted the sum of Rs.5,50,000/- as interest
between 16.05.2011 to 30.06.2011 on the sum of Rs.1,31,00,000/- i.e. the
balance payable, @ 18% per annum. It was further averred that after taking
the money the defendant-appellant was delaying the paper work. On
09.07.2011, in their efforts of performing due diligence for advancing loan
to the plaintiff-respondent, defendant No.2- Ravi Kant Parnani in the suit,
integrity of this judgment/order.
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
asked the plaintiff-respondent to show the original documents, however, the
defendant-appellant refused to show the documents thereby jeopardizing the
loan of the plaintiff-respondent. It was further averred that the plaintiff-
respondent was still ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.
5. On notice the defendant-appellant filed his written statement. In
the written statement the factum of the agreement to sell was admitted,
however, it was stated that the same stood terminated on account of
commission of intentional and willful breaches. It was further the stand
taken that the sale consideration was Rs.3,00,00,000/- and that there was an
agreement of cancellation dated 24.12.2010 and that the plaintiff-respondent
had omitted any reference to the same. It was further the stand taken in the
written statement that after the agreement of cancellation was prepared on
24.12.2010, the plaintiff-respondent conveyed to the defendant-appellant
that by 11.04.2011 she would discharge her entire financial obligation and
make payment of the entire sale consideration. It was under these
circumstances that the defendant-appellant conveyed to the plaintiff-
respondent that he would be compelled to terminate the contract on
11.04.2011 in case she failed to make the payment of the entire sale
consideration. It was further averred that at that time the attention of the
plaintiff-respondent was drawn to clause 4 of the agreement to sell in which
the purchaser was liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum for the delay
period in making the payment of the sale consideration. It was further the
stand taken that after waiting for considerable time, it was categorically
integrity of this judgment/order.
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
communicated to the plaintiff-respondent that in case she failed to make the
payment by 30.06.2011 then the defendant-appellant would proceed to
terminate the contract. Accordingly, on 01.07.2011, due to intentional and
willful failure, the agreement to sell dated 26.10.2010 was terminated.
6. Replication was filed by the plaintiff-respondent reiterating her
pleas taken in the plaint and controverting those stated in the written
statement.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues
were framed :
(i) Whether the plaintiff remains ready and willing to
perform her part of the contract dated 26.10.2010 ?
OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of
mandatory injunction for issuance of directions to
defendant No.1 to furnish original documents so
required by defendant No.3 for completion of loan
formalities? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
permanent injunction restraining the defendants
from alienating the suit property to any other
person except the plaintiff ? OPP
integrity of this judgment/order.
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
(iv) Whether the plaintiff has no neither locus standi
and nor cause of action to file the present suit ?
OPD
(v) Whether the plaintiff is bound by his own act and
conduct, omission, commission acquiescence and
latches ? OPD
(vi) Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been
properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and
jurisdiction ? OPD
(vii) Relief.
8. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016
decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for alternative relief of recovery
of Rs.1,34,40,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the
last payment i.e. 30.06.2011 till final payment. Aggrieved by the said
judgment and decree an appeal was preferred by the defendant-appellant
which appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 24.08.2022.
Hence, the present regular second appeal.
9. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-
appellant would contend that in the present case there is no challenge to the
cancellation of the agreement to sell vide cancellation agreement dated
24.12.2010 (Ex.X-2). It is further the contention that there is no receipt
regarding the cash payment and that only an amount of Rs.61,20,000/- was
paid by cheque/RTGS and that the defendant-appellant was even till today
integrity of this judgment/order.
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
willing to pay the said amount. It is further the contention of the learned
senior counsel that the agreement to sell dated 26.10.2010 (Ex.P-3) was
cancelled vide cancellation agreement (Ex.X-2), which is an admitted fact.
That being so, the present suit itself was not maintainable as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of I.S. Sikandar (D) By LRs Vs. K.
Subramani & Ors. [2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 236]. Learned senior counsel has
further relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of 'Padmawati &
Ors. Vs. Kulwant Rai & Ors. [2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 605] to contend that
pleadings have to be read as a whole and the intention of the party has to be
gathered, primarily, from the tenor and term of his pleadings taken as a
whole. Learned senior counsel has further relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangala Waman Karandikar
(Dead) through LRs Vs. Prakash Damodar Ranade [(2021) 6 SCC 139]
on interpretation of deeds and documents and to contend that the intention of
the party is to be gathered from the recital contained in the agreement deed.
Further reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Placido Francisco Pinto (D) by LRs & Anr. Vs. Jose
Franciso Pinto & Anr. [2021 SCC Online SC 842] to contend that oral
evidence of a written agreement is excluded except when it is sought to be
alleged the document as a sham transaction. Reliance has also been placed
on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rakesh Vs. Suresh Chand
[2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 557] to contend that the Appellate Court has to
critically examine the reasons given in the impugned judgment before
integrity of this judgment/order.
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
reversing it. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of this Court in
the case of Kullu Ram Vs. Punjab Wakf Board & Ors. [2016 (3) RCR
(Civil) 977] to contend that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and he
cannot take the benefit of the weakness of the defendant.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-
respondent has contended that in the written statement there is no specific
denial to para No.7 of the plaint wherein the payments made have been
stated. It is further the contention that in the said paragraphs it has been
stated that as far as the last payment of Rs.70,000/- in cash is concerned, the
same was made on 13.06.2011 along with a cheque of Rs.1,20,000/- and no
cash payment was made on 30.06.2011. Learned counsel has further
contended that there was no question of challenging the cancellation
agreement (Ex.X-2) since the said agreement was never acted upon. Infact,
even as per the written statement the stand taken by the defendant-appellant
was that he would convey to the plaintiff-respondent that he would be
compelled to terminate the contract on 11.04.2011 in case the plaintiff-
respondent failed to make the payment of the entire sale consideration. It is
further the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that
the defendant-appellant in his cross-examination has clearly admitted the
payment of the amount as stated by the plaintiff-respondent in the plaint. In
support of his arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has
relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Sushil Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar [(2003) 8 SCC 673] to contend that
integrity of this judgment/order.
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
non-specific or an evasive denial to the contents of the plaint are deemed to
be an admission as per Order VIII Rules 3, 4 and 5 CPC. Reliance has also
been placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Satish Batra Vs. Sudhi Rawal [(2013) 1 SCC 345] to contend that
advance money paid towards purchase of a property cannot be forfeited in
the absence of an express term of the contract to that effect. Reliance has
also been placed upon the judgments in the cases of Harpreet Kanwar Vs.
State of Punjab [2016 SCC Online P&H 11094]; Chamkaur Singh Vs.
State of Punjab [2016 SCC Online P&H 8758]; Ravi Chaudhary Vs.
Kanta Ahuja [2017 SCC Online Del. 8525]; Naveen Garg Vs. Rajrani
Garg [2015 SCC Online Del. 11259] and Karan Dem Vs. Jyoti Gandhi
[2021 SCC Online Del. 4654] to contend that mere response as "matter of
record" by a defendant amounts to an admission.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
12. In the present case the execution of the agreement to sell dated
26.10.2010 is admitted. According to the plaintiff-respondent she is entitled
to specific performance or refund of the amount paid by her while as per the
defendant-appellant he has forfeited the amount received since the plaintiff-
respondent did not complete the transaction. The plaintiff-respondent in para
No.7 of the plaint referred to the payments made on various dates towards
principal as well as interest which according to her totalled Rs.1,34,40,000/-.
In the amended written statement, in reply to para No.7 of the plaint, there is
no denial by the defendant-appellant to the amount paid by the plaintiff-
integrity of this judgment/order.
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
respondent and the amount received by the defendant-appellant. Only the
date of receipt of Rs.70,000/- in cash was disputed as being 13.06.2011 and
not 30.06.2011. The defendant-appellant has taken a plea of forfeiture on
account of termination of the agreement to sell.
13. There is no forfeiture clause in the agreement to sell dated
26.10.2010 (Ex.P3). Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
defendant-appellant has laid much stress on the document termed as an
agreement for cancellation dated 24.12.2010 (Ex.X-2) to contend that the
transaction stood cancelled and the amount was validly forfeited by the
defendant-appellant. However, the facts disclose that this agreement for
cancellation was never acted upon by the parties. The said agreement for
cancellation is dated 24.12.2010 but thereafter, admittedly, payments were
received by the defendant-appellant even on 13.06.2011 as stated in para
No.7 of the written statement. The defendant-appellant in his cross-
examination also admitted the receipt of Rs.70,000/- in cash along with
cheque of Rs.1,20,000/-, though on 13.06.2011 and not on 30.06.2011. In his
cross-examination the defendant-appellant also admitted that he had
received approximately Rs.1,00,00,000/- (rupees one crore) from the
plaintiff-respondent. Thus, it cannot be accepted that the agreement to sell
stood cancelled and there was therefore a necessity for the plaintiff-
respondent to challenge the cancellation of agreement dated 24.12.2010. The
decision in the case of I.S. Sikandar (supra) relied upon by the learned
senior counsel for the defendant-appellant is distinguishable as in that case
integrity of this judgment/order.
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
the agreement of sale was terminated as per a notice dated 28.03.1985 and it
was thus held that there was a termination of the agreement of sale between
the parties. However, in the present case even after the agreement of
cancellation dated 24.12.2010 payments were made by the plaintiff-
respondent and accepted by the defendant-appellant without demur.
14. The agreement to sell dated 26.10.2010 (Ex.P3) itself does not
have any clause for forfeiture. The agreement for cancellation dated
24.12.2010 (Ex.X-2), though was never acted upon, also has no forfeiture
clause and rather the defendant-appellant agreed to return to the plaintiff-
respondent the amount received by him, after selling the suit property. Thus,
there was never any covenant between the parties that the defendant-
appellant could forfeit or retain the amount received by him from the
plaintiff-respondent. The decisions in Mangala Waman (supra) and Placido
Francisco (supra) relied upon by the defendant-appellant are therefore not
applicable to the present case.
15. The second argument of the learned senior counsel for the
defendant-appellant is that the entire pleadings have to be read as a whole
and the intention of the party has to be gathered primarily from the tenor and
term of the pleadings taken as a whole. With this argument it is submitted
that a conjoint reading of the written statement, the agreement to sell and the
cancellation of agreement make it clear that the defendant-appellant rightly
forfeited the amount. There can be no quarrel with the proposition of law as
laid down in the case of Padmawati (supra). However, a perusal of the
integrity of this judgment/order.
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
written statement read as a whole conjointly with the pleadings in the plaint
and the evidence on the record, makes it amply clear that the receipt of
money totaling Rs.1,34,40,000/- has not been denied by the defendant-
appellant. The defendant-appellant has failed to point out a single clause in
the two deeds (agreement to sell and cancellation of agreement) whereunder
he could forfeit the amount received. It is trite that evasive denials are
deemed to be an admission. In view of the admissions in the written
statement as well as the admissions made in the cross-examination by the
defendant-appellant, it is amply clear that the amounts, as stated in the
plaint, were received by him.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thangam & Anr.
vs. Navamani Ammal [2024 SCC OnLine SC 227] has held as under :
"35. Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC clearly provides for
specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the
plaint. A general or evasive denial is not treated as
sufficient. Proviso to Order VIII Rule 5 CPC provides
that even the admitted facts may not be treated to be
admitted, still in its discretion the Court may require
those facts to be proved. This is an exception to the
general rule. General rule is that the facts admitted, are
not required to be proved.
36. The requirement of Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC
are specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the
integrity of this judgment/order.
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
plaint. The same would necessarily mean dealing with
the allegations in the plaint para-wise. In the absence
thereof, the respondent can always try to read one line
from one paragraph and another from different
paragraph in the written statement to make out his case
of denial of the allegations in the plaint resulting in
utter confusion.
37. In case, the defendant/respondent wishes to take
any preliminary objections, the same can be taken in a
separate set of paragraphs specifically so as to enable
the plaintiff/petitioner to respond to the same in the
replication/rejoinder, if need be. The additional
pleadings can also be raised in the written statement, if
required. These facts specifically stated in a set of
paragraphs will always give an opportunity to the
plaintiff/petitioner to respond to the same. This in turn
will enable the Court to properly comprehend the
pleadings of the parties instead of digging the facts from
the various paragraphs of the plaint and the written
statement.
38. The issue regarding specific admission and denial
of the pleadings was considered by this Court in Badat
and Co. Bombay v. East India Trading Co. While
integrity of this judgment/order.
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
referring to Order VIII Rules 3 to 5 of the CPC it was
opined that the aforesaid Rules formed an integrated
Code dealing with the manner in which the pleadings
are to be dealt with. Relevant parts of para '11' thereof
are extracted below:
"11. Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure
prescribes, among others, that the plaintiff shall
give in the plaint the facts constituting the cause of
action and when it arose, and the facts showing the
court has jurisdiction. The object is to enable the
defendant to ascertain from the plaint the
necessary facts so that he may admit or deny them.
Order VIII provides for the filing of a written-
statement, the particulars to be contained therein
and the manner of doing so;
XXXXXXXXX
These three rules form an integrated code dealing
with the manner in which allegations of fact in the
plaint should be traversed and the legal
consequences flowing from its non-compliance.
The written statement must deal specifically with
each allegation of fact in the plaint and when a
defendant denies any such fact, he must not do so
integrity of this judgment/order.
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
evasively, but answer the point of substance. If his
denial of a fact is not specific but evasive, the said
fact shall be taken to be admitted. In such an event,
the admission itself being proof, no other proof is
necessary."
39. The matter was further considered by this Court in
Lohia Properties (P) Ltd., Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Assam
v. Atmaram Kumar after the 1976 Amendment Act in
CPC whereby the existing Rule 5 of Order VIII of the
CPC was numbered as sub-rule (1) and three more sub-
rules were added dealing with different situations where
no written statement is filed. In paras 14 and 15 of the
aforesaid judgment, the position of law as stated earlier
was reiterated. The same are extracted below:
"14. What is stated in the above is, what amount to
admit a fact on pleading while Rule 3 of Order 8
requires that the defendant must deal specifically
with each allegation of fact of which he does not
admit the truth.
15. Rule 5 provides that every allegation of fact in
the plaint, if not denied in the written statement
shall be taken to be admitted by the defendant.
What this rule says is, that any allegation of fact
integrity of this judgment/order.
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
must either be denied specifically or by a necessary
implication or there should be at least a statement
that the fact is not admitted. If the plea is not taken
in that manner, then the allegation shall be taken to
be admitted."
17. In Sushil Kumar's case (supra) it was held that "The pleadings
in an election petition must likewise be construed strictly. The provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure apply to an election petition. The election
petition is not an action at law or a suit in equity. It is a special proceeding
and even withdrawal of an election petition may not be permitted". In terms
of Order 8 Rule 5 CPC, as has been noticed above, every allegation of fact in
the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to
be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant is to be taken to be admitted
except as against a person under disability. Therefore, there has to be a
specific denial of allegation of fact made in the plaint.
18. The Trial Court declined the relief of specific performance to
the plaintiff-respondent on the ground that she was not in a position to pay
the balance sale consideration. No loan from the bank was also proved to
have been sanctioned in her favour. The Trial Court found that :
"20. It is also worth considering that the plaintiff did
not adduce and prove the copy of her loan application
or any other document to show that she indeed applied
for any loan for purchasing the suit property.
integrity of this judgment/order.
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
21. Though, the plaintiff tendered a copy of letter
Ex.-P6 purported to be issued by S.B.I, New Delhi to
plaintiff qua the suit property, but this letter Ex.-P6 has
not been proved as no bank official was examined.
22. Thus, the corollary is that the plaintiff would not
have been able to pay the complete balance sale
consideration to defendant in the absence of any Bank
loan. No such bank loan has yet been sanctioned to the
plaintiff, neither in this case the plaintiff has been able
to prove that she had applied for such a bank loan. Nor
it is the case of plaintiff that he had any other source
from which he would have arranged money for payment
of sale consideration. Thus, doubts appear on the
plaintiff's financial capacity to pay entire balance sale
consideration on the date of filing of the suit.
23. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion
that the discretionary relief of specific performance of
agreement to sell dated 26.10.2010 (Ex.P3) is not made
out in the present case. However, the Plaintiff would
still be entitled to seek refund of payment of any money
made by him to defendant pursuant to agreement to sell
dated 26.10.2010 (Ex.P3)."
integrity of this judgment/order.
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
The plaintiff-respondent did not challenge these findings of the Trial Court
and did not prefer any appeal before the First Appellate Court. The suit was
decreed to the extent that the defendant-appellant was directed to pay to the
plaintiff-respondent an amount of Rs.1,34,40,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 8% per annum from the date of last payment i.e. 30.6.2011 till full
payment.
19. Reliefs in a suit for specific performance are founded on the
principle of good conscience and grant of effective relief. Both the Courts
have directed the defendant-appellant to pay to the plaintiff-respondent an
amount of Rs.1,34,40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
This amount of Rs.1,34,40,000/- was computed in the plaint, without any
denial in the written statement, as Rs.1,29,00,000/- towards principal and
Rs.5,40,000/- towards interest. Further, out of this total amount of
Rs.1,34,40,000/- only Rs.61,20,000/- was paid by cheque/bank transfer.
More than 50% was paid in cash. By allowing interest on this cash
component the Court would be putting a premium on violation of the law by
the parties. The plaintiff-respondent cannot be allowed to unjustifiably get
enriched. Huge, unaccounted cash transactions in property dealings need to
be curbed.
20. Thus, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the judgements
and decrees of the Courts below to a limited extent that though the
defendant-appellant shall be liable to pay Rs.1,34,40,000/- to the plaintiff-
respondent, he shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum
integrity of this judgment/order.
RSA-2552-2022 2024:PHHC:036379
from the date of last payment i.e. 30.6.2011 till full payment only on the
amount of cheque payments received by him. No interest shall be payable by
the defendant-appellant on the cash component received by him though he
shall pay the same to the plaintiff-respondent. With this modification, the
present regular second appeal is disposed off.
14.03.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
integrity of this judgment/order.
