HIMA KOHLI
SIDHARTHA TAYAL – Appellant
Versus
DINESH GOEL – Respondent
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 w
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.