The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of honoring agreements and the presumption of law regarding the service of notices.

J.M. Malik, J.

1. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance which was decreed by the Trial Court and its finding was confirmed by the Appellate Court. Aggrieved by those two judgments the instant second appeal has been preferred. The appellant agreed to sell property No. 1809, measuring 350 square yards situated in Panna Mamurpur, Narela, Delhi in favor of the respondent vide Agreement to Sell dated 18.07.1995 for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Earnest money of Rs. 1,00,000/-was paid to the appellant by the respondent. It was stipulated that the appellant would execute the Sale Deed within a period of 18 months. At the time of execution of Agreement to Sell the original Sale Deed of the property and the vacant physical possession of the part of the property was handed over to the respondent by the appellant and the appellant promised to hand over the possession of the remaining property at the time of receipt of balance payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- at the time of execution of Sale Deed. The respondent kept on enquiring from the appellant regarding the sale permission and other formalities which were to be completed by the appellant but the appellant put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Consequently, the respondent sent legal notice dated 15.01.1997 and intimated the appellant that balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-and registration fees were ready with him to execute the Sale Deed. However, the legal notice did not ring the bell. The appellant did not take the trouble even to respond to the said notice. On 02.05.1998 the respondent approached the appellant and requested him to execute the Sale Deed. The appellant replied that since the prices had gone high, thereforee, he would return Rs. 1,00,000/-, already given to him and would sell the property at higher prices. Ultimately, the present suit was filed on 15.07.1998.

2. The appellant listed the following defenses in his written statement. The respondent had failed to pay the remaining consideration amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the appellant within the agreed period and thereforee the earnest money given by him to the appellant was forfeited by the appellant in the year 1996. Under these circumstances, the respondent had no right in the property in question. The appellant explained that he had contacted the respondent within the agreed period of 18 months on many occasions, yet the respondent failed to pay the remaining consideration amount to the appellant. The appellant also took the objection that the suit is barred by limitation.

3. I have heard the counsel for the appellant. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that no notice was served upon the appellant. He explained that, although, copy of the notice purported to have been given by Surinder Kumar, Advocate on 15.01.1997 was placed on the record, yet, it is not signed by him. Secondly, no AD card saw the light of the day. Moreover, Surinder Kumar, Advocate was not produced in the dock to prove the notice for the reasons best known to the respondent.

4. These arguments carry no conviction. It must be borne in mind that copy of the notice is not required to be signed by the Advocate. Secondly, respondent has proved on record that this notice was sent through Regd. AD and has produced Ex. PW1/C, which is the receipt issued by the postal authority. There is presumption of law that the above said notice was served upon the appellant. This view is fortified by the judgment of this Court reported in Vinod Khanna and Ors. v. Bk. Sachdev 1995 RLR 431, wherein it was held, It is settled law by the decisions of Privy Council and Supreme Court that if a notice properly addressed is delivered to Post Office, then it must be presumed that it was duly given. Presumption is greater when the notice is registered.

5. In addition the respondent has also served the notice through UPC and has proved UPC certificate as Ex. PW1/D. Counsel for the appellant admitted that the address mentioned on t