A seller must prove ownership and clear title to enforce forfeiture of an earnest deposit, especially when multiple legal heirs dispute the transaction.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

CM. No. 40823/2021 (for delay)

This is an application filed by the applicant/appellant seeking condonation of 20 days' delay in re-filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

Application stands disposed of.

RFA 386/2021

1. The challenge in this appeal filed by the appellant/defendant in the Suit is to a judgment/decree dated December 07, 2019, passed by the Addl. District Judge-01, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi decreeing the Suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff herein for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. The facts as noted from the record are, it was the case of the respondent/plaintiff before the Trial Court that he is known to the appellant/defendant through Roop Chand Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. Gupta Property, Mehrauli Road, Palam. The appellant/defendant approached the respondent/plaintiff and claimed that he is the lawful owner and is in possession of residential plot bearing number RZF-757/28, an area measuring 100 Sq. Yds., which is part of Khasra No. 47/20 situated in Raj Nagar, Part-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi-77. According to the respondent/plaintiff the appellant/defendant allured him by representing that he is the sole owner of the suit property and wants to sell the same for total consideration of Rs.60,11,000/- as he is in urgent need of money. The appellant/defendant further assured him that the chain of all sale documents of the suit property are with him and after execution of the agreement to sale, he will provide the copy of the entire sale documents so that the respondent/plaintiff can verify the genuineness of the documents. The respondent/plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property for the aforesaid consideration, out of which Rs.6,00,000/- was given by the respondent/plaintiff as advance money to the appellant/defendant, and an agreement to sell was executed between them in the presence of witnesses namely Sh. Suresh Chand Garg and Sh. Roop Chand Gupta on August 26, 2016, and the rest of the amount of sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed and after handing over the vacant and physical possession of the suit property on or before October 26, 2016.

2. It was the case of the respondent/plaintiff that when he asked the appellant/defendant to provide the sale documents, the appellant/defendant provided the photocopy of one registered sale deed of suit property dated May 12, 2016, which has been executed by the father of the appellant/defendant Sh. Shankar Lal Sant in favour of the appellant/defendant and it transpired that appellant/defendant is the fourth owner of the property as the suit property was in the name of Sh. Ved Prakash, son of Maha Singh, resident of Village-Palam Colony, who sold the same to Smt. Indira, wife of Sh. Shankar Lal Sant and later on Smt. Indira executed a Will in favour of Sh. Sant Lal on September 23, 2011, and she expired on February 06, 2015.

3. It was the case of the respondent/plaintiff that when he came to know that the appellant/defendant is the fourth owner of the suit property, he requested the appellant/defendant to show the original sale documents executed by Sh. Ved Prakash in favour of Smt. Indira and death certificate of Sh. Indira and name of oth