Minu Chaterjee v. Laxmi Jain

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

J.R. MIDHA, J. December 05, 2008 rk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment reserved on : December 01, 2008 % Judgment delivered on : December 05, 2008 + RFA 416/2008 MINU CHATERJEE ..... Appellant Through: Mr.V.M. Issar, Advocate VERSUS LAXMI JAIN ..... Respondent Through: Mr.S.P.Singh Chaudhary, Advocate CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. The appellant has suffered a decree directing her to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed in respect of Flat No.32-B, Pocket-A, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi. 2. The case of the respondent was that she was desirous of purchasing an immovable property for which an agreement to sell, Ex.PW-2/B, was executed by the appellant on 31.12.2003 recording therein that the sale price agreed was Rs.14,70,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lacs Seventy Thousand only) and that she paid Rs.1,00,000/- by three cheques of dated 31.12.2003 to the appellant and that said fact was duly recorded in the agreement to sell. That three months' time was stipulated for completion of the sale transaction within which time she had to pay the balance sale consideration. That the appellant desired some more time to execute the sale deed and that further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) was paid by her on 8.3.2004 on receipt whereof the appellant executed the receipt Ex.PW-2/C. That further sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) was paid by her to the appellant for which she executed the receipt Ex.PW-2/D. Further sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) was paid on 17.5.2004 for which the appellant while acknowledging receipt, executed Ex.PW-2/E. That in this manner only Rs.11,20,000/- remained as the amount outstanding which she offered to the appellant on 2.9.2004 who postponed the issue of execution of the sale deed stating that her husband was away in the USA and she would await his return. It was stated that sensing mischief a notice dated 4.9.2004, Ex.PW-2/F was sent under registered AD post at two addresses of the appellant vide postal receipt Ex.PW-2/G and Ex.PW-2/H. 3. The appellant filed a written statement denying having executed the agreement to sell. She labeled the agreement to sell Ex.PW-2/B as a forged and fabricated document. Affirming having received Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) by means of three cheques from the respondent, she stated that she received the said amount under an oral agreement whereunder it was agreed that the property shall be sold for Rs.17,70,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lacs Seventy Thousand only). She denied having received any further amounts from the respondent. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, it is obvious, that the material issue which arose for consideration was whether the appellant had executed the agreement to sell Ex.PW-2/B and whether she had received further amounts from the respondent as claimed by the respondent and whether the respondent had always been ready and willing to perform her obligations under the agreement, if the same was proved as duly executed. 5. Respondent examined one Shri S.P.Singh as PW-1, who claimed to be a handwriting expert. He proved his report wherein he had opined that the disputed signatures of the appellant on the agreement to sell and the receipts were those of the appellant. 6. The respondent examined herself as PW-2 and reiterated her version pleaded in the plaint and proved the agreement to sell and the receipts noted hereinabove. She identified the signatures of the appellant on the said documents as also those of the witnesses who were present and had witnessed the execution of the said documents. 7. Abhinandan Jain was examined as PW-3 who deposed that he was present when the agreement to sell Ex.PW-2/B was drawn up. He stated that the blank spaces were filled up before the appellant executed the s