SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(P&H) 2785

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
L.N.Mittal, J.
Baldev Singh
Versus
Keshwa Nand And Others
Regular Second Appeal No. 2482 of 2007,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 30, 2010

Frustration of contract due to land acquisition, entitlement to refund of earnest money, and application of equity and good conscience.

Headnote:

Frustration of Contract - Sale of Land - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 - Section 18 - Equity and Good Conscience

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff seeks refund of earnest money for land purchase due to land acquisition by government. Lower appellate court dismisses suit, plaintiff appeals.

Finding of the Court:

The court finds that the agreement was frustrated due to land acquisition, and the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of earnest money with interest. The defendants received compensation far exceeding the sale consideration, and the plaintiff is entitled to the refund.

Issues: Dispute over refund of earnest money, breach of agreement, and legality of lower appellate court's judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: The agreement was frustrated due to land acquisition, time was not the essence of the contract, and the plaintiff is entitled to a refund based on principles of equity and good conscience.

Final Decision: The second appeal is allowed, and the judgment and decree of the trial court are restored with proportionate cost throughout.

Judgment

L.N.Mittal, J.

1. The instant second appeal has been preferred by plaintiff Baldev Singh, who was fairly successful in the trial court, but has been nonsuited by the lower appellate court.

2. It is undisputed that defendants, vide agreement to sell dated 17.05.1996, agreed to sell 08 kanals 19 marlas land to the plaintiff @ Rs.4,000/- per marla and received Rs.40,000/- as earnest money. Defendants also received further amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 20.08.1996 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 26.11.1996. Lastly, date for execution of sale deed was extended to 20.04.1997.

3. Plaintiffs case is that before 20.04.1997 - the date stipulated for execution of sale deed, Punjab Government made announcement for development of Anandpur Sahib in view of forthcoming 300th birth anniversary of Khalsa at Anandpur Sahib and consequently, Development Authority was formed to prepare plan for acquisition of land of Anandpur Sahib town and surrounding villages. In view thereof, the plaintiff sought refund of his earnest money of Rs.3,40,000/- from the defendants, who agreed to pay the same to the plaintiff at his house on 20.04.1997, but the defendants did not turn up. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought refund of earnest money of Rs.3,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 11/2% per month w.e.f. 20.04.1997 till recovery. The plaintiff included Rs.1,78,500/- as interest for pre-suit period and therefore, filed suit for recovery of Rs.5,18,500/-.

4. The defendants, while admitting the agreement and receipt of earnest money of Rs.3,40,000/- from the plaintiff, controverted the other plaint allegations and inter alia pleaded that the plaintiff did not have requisite money for getting the sale deed executed and committed breach of agreement, although defendants were always ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement and therefore, earnest money paid by the plaintiff stands forfeited. Various other pleas were also raised.

5. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anandpur Sahib, vide judgment and decree dated 27.05.2004, decreed the plaintiffs suit for recovery of Rs.3,40,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till recovery. However, first appeal preferred by defendant no.l has been allowed by learned District Judge, Rup Nagar vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.2006 and thereby, suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

7. At the outset, it may be noticed that learned counsel for the respondents has today filed in Court affidavit of respondent no.l, pursuant to order dated 21.04.2010. The same is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the agreement was frustrated because of acquisition of the suit land and therefore, the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to return of earnest money paid by him to the defendants along with interest thereon.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that process for acquisition of land started on 15.08.1997 with publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short - the Act), whereas date of execution of sale deed was 20.04.1997 i.e. before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and therefore, plaintiff had already committed breach of the agreement by not getting the sale deed executed on the stipulated date i.e. 20.04.1997, when the process of acquisition had not commenced. It was also contended that plaintiff did not have requisite money with him to get the sale deed executed and the plaintiff himself committed breach of the agreement. It was also pointed out that defendants had even sent notice dated 10.07.1997 for getting the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement, but the plaintiff neither sent any reply to the notice nor got the sale deed executed.

10. I have carefully conside






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top