SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
SATISH BATRA – Appellants.
VERSUS
SUDHIR RAWAL – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7588 of 2012 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 4605 of 2012]
Decided On : 18-10-2012.
Transfer of Property Act - Section 55(6)(b) - Payment on installments - Paying balance amount - Appeal is whether the seller is entitled to forfeit earnest money deposit where sale of an immovable property falls through by reason of fault or failure purchaser - An Agreement for Sale of property bearing Punjabi New Delhi was entered into between appellant Seller and respondent Purchaser for total consideration of to be paid on or before towards earnest money an amount of was paid on and another that means altogether was paid he total sale consideration - Purchaser however could not pay balance amount of consequently sale deed could not be executed - Seller therefore did not return earnest money to purchaser - Held, Agreement only that would be determinative of character sum but really intention of parties and surrounding circumstances as well that have to be baked into and what may be called an advance may really be deposit or earnest money and what is termed as deposit or earnest money may ultimately turn out to be really an advance or part of purchase price - Earnest money or deposit also thus serves two purposes of being part payment of purchase money and security for performances contract by party concerned contract should be clear and explicit - Earnest money is paid or given at time when contract is entered into and as pledge for its due performance by depositor to be forfeited in case of non-performance by depositor - There can be converse situation also that if seller fails to perform contract purchaser can also get double amount if it is so stipulated - Part payment of purchase price cannot be forfeited unless it is guarantee for due performance of contract - Words if payment is made only towards part payment of consideration and not intended as earnest money then forfeiture clause will not apply - When court examine clauses in instant case it is amply clear that clause extracted hereinabove was included in contract at moment at which contract was entered into - Represents guarantee that contract would be fulfilled – Words earnest is given to bind contract which is part of purchase price when transaction is carried out and it will be forfeited when transaction falls through by reason of default or failure purchaser - There is no other clause militates against clauses extracted in agreement - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.-Leave granted.
2. The question that has come up for consideration in this appeal is whether the seller is entitled to forfeit the earnest money deposit where the sale of an immovable property falls through by reason of the fault or failure of the purchaser.
3. An Agreement for Sale of property bearing No. 14/11, 2nd Floor, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi was entered into between the appellant (Seller) and the respondent (Purchaser) on 29.11.2005 for a total consideration of Rs.70,00,000/- to be paid on or before 5.3.2006 and, towards earnest money, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid on 29.11.2005 and another Rs.3,00,000/-on 30.11.2005, that means, altogether Rs.7,00,000/- was paid, being 10% of the total sale consideration. The purchaser, however, could not pay the balance amount of Rs.63,00,000/-before 5.3.2006, consequently, the sale deed could not be executed. Seller, therefore, did not return the earnest money to the purchaser.
4. Consequently, the purchaser, as plaintiff, instituted a suit No. 764/08/06 before the Additional District Judge, Delhi for recovery of Rs.7,00,000/- from the seller-defendant of the earnest money paid by him. Defendant contested the suit stating that, as per the agreement, he is entitled to forfeit the amount of earnest money, if there was a failure on the part of the purchaser-plaintiff in paying the balance amount of Rs.63,00,000/-.
5. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the defendant is entitled to retain the amount of earnest money since the plaintiff had failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.63,00,000/- before 5.3.2006.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, plaintiff took up the matter in appeal before the High Court of Delhi by filing R.F.A. No. 137 of 2010. The High Court, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Dass AIR 1963 SC 1405, took the view that the seller is entitled to forfeit only a nominal amount and not the entire amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. The High Court further held that the seller can forfeit an amount of Rs.50,000/- out of the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and he is bound to refund the balance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the purchaser. To this extent, a decree was also passed in favour of purchaser against the seller. It was also held that the purchaser is also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from 29.11.2005 till the amount is paid.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, the seller has come up with this appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel on either side at length. Facts are undisputed. The only question is whether the seller is entitled to retain the entire amount of Rs.7,00,000/- received towards earnest money or not. The fact that the purchaser was at fault in not paying the balance consideration of Rs.63,00,000/- is also not disputed. The question whether the seller can retain the entire amount of earnest money depends upon the terms of the agreement. Relevant clause of the Agreement for Sale dated 29.11.2005 is extracted hereunder for easy reference:
“(e) If the prospective purchaser fail to fulfill the above condition. The transaction shall stand cancelled and earnest money will be forfeited. In case I fail to complete the transaction as stipulated above. The purchaser will get the DOUBLE amount of the earnest money. In the both condition, DEALER will get 4% Commission from the faulty party.”
The clause, therefore, stipulates that if the purchaser fails to fulfill the conditions mentioned in the agreement, the transaction shall stand cancelled and earnest money will be forfeited. On the other hand, if the seller fails to complete the transaction, the purchaser would get double the amount of earnest money. Indisputedly the purchaser failed to perform his part of the contract, then the question is whether the seller can forfeit the entire earnest money.
9. The question raised is no more res integra. In (Kunwar) Chiranjit Singh v. Har Swarup AIR 19
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.