The court clarified that mere acknowledgment of a notice does not constitute contract rescission without supporting actions from the rescinding party.

1. Heard Mr. S.B. Mohta, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The substantial question of law put forth by the appellant in essence, is as follow :

“Whether the Courts below were right in holding that the suit was within limitation specifically when the Plaintiff himself admitted receipt of notice dated 14.12.2011 terminating the agreement to Sell dated 02.02.2011 ?”

3. The appellant-original defendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’) and the respondents-original plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiffs’) had entered into an agreement to sell dated 2nd February, 2011 in respect of suit property viz. house having Old T.S. No.147 (New T.S. No.150), having NMC House No.877, Ward No.38, situated at Sataranjipura, Nagpur. The defendant is vendor and the plaintiffs are the purchasers. The agreed amount of consideration is/was Rs.41,00,000/-. The plaintiffs have paid Rs.20,51,000/- to the defendant till 5th August, 2011. The sale-deed was to be executed on or before 1st August, 2011. The balance amount of consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale-deed. The amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant on 5th August, 2011 which is subsequent to the agreed date of execution of sale-deed. The defendant agreed to supply Property Card (Aakhiv Patrika), renewed lease and NOC from the Nagpur Improvement Trust. The defendant could not obtain the documents and, therefore, the sale-deed has not been executed within the stipulated time. In the meantime, the defendant issued a notice dated 14th December, 2011 and rescinded the contract and offered to refund the earnest money.

4. The amount of earnest money, however, has not been refunded by the defendant. Further both the parties have not placed on record the notice dated 14th December, 2011.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that plaintiffs themselves have pleaded in paragraph 8 of the plaint that defendant issued notice to the plaintiffs on 14th December, 2011 and rescinded an agreement and offered refund of earnest money. This being the position, Mr. S.B. Mohta submits that the fact of receipt of notice having been admitted by the plaintiffs, the defendant was not under obligation to prove the said fact by placing on record the copy of the notice.

6. The answer to the aforesaid contention finds place in the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court while answering the issue of limitation observed in para 10 as under :

“10. The other aspect is that the defendant has issued notice dated 14/12/2011 to the plaintiffs informing that he has rescinded the agreement and offered refund of earnest amount. The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the said fact finds place in Para-8 of the plaint. The said notice dated 14/12/2011 is not filed by either of the parties, but the stand of the defendant is that his both sons and daughter have taken objection for the transaction and therefore, he is not in a position to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs. This cannot be considered as refusal as the plaintiffs have further pleaded that they approached and sought explanation of the defendant, who informed them that as he could not procure the documents and therefore, unable to execute the sale-deed. Thus, the stand of the plaintiffs or his admission cannot be taken in isolation that they have only received the notice of refusal by def