The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving contractual obligations and readiness to perform the contract, along with the significance of documentary evidence in supporting the claims.

1. The appellant/defendant has assailed the judgment dated 19.5.2016 passed by the learned trial court dismissing his suit for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/-instituted against the respondents/defendants on the ground that he had failed to fulfil the terms of the Agreement to Sell dated 5.4.2010 in respect of a commercial space bearing No.S-15, Second Floor, Cross River Mall, Karkardooma, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the shop’) and therefore, he is entitled to claim double of the earnest money from them.

2. A brief recapitulation of the relevant facts of the case is necessary. The appellant/plaintiff has instituted a suit for recovery against the respondents/defendants, through his father, Shri Sham Tayal, described as his power of attorney holder, stating inter alia that on 5.4.2010, he had entered into an agreement with the respondents/defendants through his father, for purchasing the shop. At that time, the respondents/defendants had asserted that they were the absolute owners of the shop. The deal was finalized for a sum of Rs.36,21,000/-. At the time of executing the Agreement to Sell, earnest money of Rs.5,00,000/-was paid in cash to the respondents/defendants and it was agreed that the balance sale consideration would be paid by the appellant/plaintiff on or before 4.6.2010, at the time of execution and registration of the sale documents, contemporaneous to the delivery of the shop.

3. The appellant/plaintiff claimed that after entering into the aforesaid agreement, the intentions of the respondents/defendants became mala fide and they started putting off the matter. On 4.6.2010, the date by which the sale documents were to be executed and registered, the appellant/plaintiff was ready with the balance amount but the respondents/defendants had sought more time on the ground that they were in the process of obtaining necessary sale permission from the competent authorities. After waiting for some time, on 16.3.2011, the appellant/plaintiff got a legal notice served on the respondents/ defendants calling upon them to execute the agreement to sell, but they gave a reply dated 28.3.2011, refuting the contents of the said notice. On receiving a reply from the respondents/defendants, alleging that they had surrendered possession of the suit premises with a mala fide intention and deliberately committed breach of the terms and conditions of the Agreement to Sell dated 5.4.2010 for which they were liable to pay double the earnest money, the appellant/plaintiff instituted the present suit on 23.1.2013, praying inter alia for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-along with interest @ 18% p.a.

4. After the summons were served on them, the defendants filed a common written statement, wherein a preliminary objection was taken seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. On merits, the respondents/defendants admitted to the execution of the Agreement to Sell dated 5.4.2010; to the amount agreed to be paid towards sale consideration, to the receipt of the earnest money and the fact that 4.6.2010 was fixed as the cut off date for execution of the sale deed in respect of the shop. However, they alleged that repeated efforts were made by the Estate Agent who had struck the deal between the parties, to contact him for completing the deal, but the appellant/plaintiff had neglected to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period. When the appellant/plaintiff committed a default in discharging the obligations cast on him, the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 had no option but to forfeit the earnest money.

5. The respondents/defendants clarified that the appellant/plaintiff was informed from day one that the entire building, where the shop was situated, belongs to M/s STC Developers Pvt. Ltd. and for a consideration, the rights of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in the said shop could easily be transferred/substituted in favour of his nominee, and as a copy of the Builder-Buyer’s Agreement executed by the