The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the plaintiff to refund of the sum along with interest in cases of failure to deliver possession, supported by legal provisions and case laws.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. - This is a suit for recovery of money.

2. The disputes by and between the parties arise out of an agreement dated 31 July, 2014, for purchase of an Aqua Golf Villa, Phase-I situated at Vedic Village at Kolkata (the premises).

3. Pursuant to an agreement for sale dated 31 July, 2014, the petitioner paid Rs.72,50,000/- to the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 duly acknowledged receipt of the same. The agreement also guaranteed return of interest @ 18% per annum compounded annually, in case the respondent no.1 failed to deliver possession of the premises to the petitioner within 24 months. The last date for handing over possession of the premises expired on 31 July 2016. The respondent no.1 was unable to deliver possession of the premises to the petitioner. The respondent no.1 also failed to return the money.

4. Thereafter, diverse negotiations took place by and between the parties. Ultimately, in or about September 2020, the respondents agreed to transfer 15 cottahs of land inside Vedic Village within three months upon the petitioner completing the due diligence of the proposed land. Subsequently, it transpired that the proposed land to be transferred to the petitioner had already been sold to a third party. 5. In November 2020, after negotiations, the respondent no.3 agreed to transfer a different piece of land measuring around 15 cottahs inside the Vedic Village Compound to the petitioner. Accordingly, the parties entered into an agreement dated 16 December, 2020, whereby the respondents agreed to transfer 15 cottahs of an alternative plot to the petitioner within three months from the date of execution of the deed of conveyance.

6. On 27 September, 2021, the petitioner ultimately issued a letter to the respondents through its Advocate, terminating the agreement in view of the failure of the respondents to handover the site. Hence, this suit.

7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the default and failure of the respondents, to honour their obligations under the agreements dated 31 July, 2014 and 16 December, 2020 respectively, the petitioner is entitled to refund of the entirety of the said sum of Rs.72,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum aggregating to Rs.2,30,94,686/-. Moreover, by the Memorandum of Understanding dated 16 December, 2020, the respondent no.3 has acknowledged default of the respondents, in complying with their obligations under the agreement dated 31 July, 2014. Additionally, notwithstanding an unequivocal obligation (Clause-III) under the MOU dated 16 December, 2020 stipulating that the respondents would hand over all title documents including the sale deed, parchas, LR information slips, khajna receipts and the like within 7 days from the date of execution of the agreement, the respondents were unable to hand over the same.

8. It is further alleged that since 2014, the respondents have been holding on to the money advanced by the petitioner and have failed to honour their contractual obligations. It is also contended that the proposed land which had been shown to the petitioner is marshy land and wholly unfit for any purpose. The petitioner relies on Harleen Jairath Vs. Prabha Surana and Anr. reported in (2019) 4 CHN 412 paras 45-54, Prabha Surana Vs. Jaideep Halwasiya reported in AIR 2021 Cal 212 and Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418, to contend that, the petitioner is entitled to be adequately secured in respect of its claim.

9. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that, the petitioner is in breach of his contractual obligations both under the agreement dated 31 July, 2014 and under the agreement dated 16 December, 2020. It is contended that all the title documents had been handed over to the petitioner. It is also alleged that the respondents were ready and willing to convey the premises to the petitioner, but it is the petitioner who is has been unwilling to honour his obligations. In this connection,