J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’) has been filed on behalf of the Appellants/Defendants against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.03.2026, whereby the Suit of the Plaintiffs/Respondents was partly decreed for refund of Rs. 4,00,000/-, being the earnest money paid to them, along with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% p.a., by the learned District Judge Delhi.

2. The Plaintiff had filed a Suit Civ. DJ No. 9472/2016 for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a., as compensation for breach of Agreement to Sell dated 21.06.2008.

3. The facts, in brief, are that Ms. Arvinder Kaur, the original Plaintiff (since deceased who is now represented by her legal heirs), entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 21.06.2008 with the original Defendants, Mr. Somnath Kharbanda and Mr. Anoop Kharbanda, for a sale consideration of Rs. 40,00,000/-(forty lacs). A sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid in cash as earnest money under the Agreement to Sell and a Receipt was duly executed in acknowledgment of the payment.

4. It was stipulated in the Agreement to Sell that the balance consideration would be paid to the sellers, on or before 05.09.2008. It was further stipulated that if the seller failed to comply with the Agreement, then he would be liable to pay double the amount of the earnest money/bayana to the purchaser. Likewise, if the purchaser failed to comply with the Agreement, then the said amount would be forfeited by the seller, and the purchaser would have no claim or objection whatsoever, in respect thereof.

5. The Plaintiff asserted that before 05.09.2008, she requested the Defendants on several occasions, to provide her with copies of the title documents in respect of the suit property, so that the title could be verified. However, despite repeated requests, the Defendants failed to produce the title documents. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not consider it prudent to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 36,00,000/-.

6. Thereafter, the Plaintiff sought refund of double the earnest money, i.e., Rs. 8,00,000/-, from the Defendants on account of their failure to abide by the terms of the Agreement to Sell, inasmuch as they failed to produce the title documents. She also requested the Property Dealer, who had negotiated the deal, to ensure that either the money was refunded or, if the Defendants had title to the suit property, the property be transferred in her name. However, on 15.04.2009, the Property Dealer conveyed to the Plaintiff that the Defendants were not willing to abide by the terms of the Agreement to Sell, dated 21.06.2008.

7. Consequently, the Plaintiff filed the Suit for Recovery of Rs. 8,00,000/-, i.e., double the earnest money, along with interest @ 12% p.a.

8. The Defendants, in their Written Statement, admitted that the Agreement to Sell dated 21.06.2008 was duly executed between the parties. However, it was claimed that it was the Plaintiff who failed to honour the terms of the Agreement to Sell, by failing to pay the balance sum of Rs.36,00,000/-. Consequently, the Defendants forfeited the bayana amount.

9. It was further stated that the Defendants, as a follow-up to the transaction with the Plaintiff, had entered into an Agreement to Sell and Purchase with one Mr. Paramjeet Singh for the purchase of another property, using the sale proceeds to be realised from the sale of the suit property to the Plaintiff.

10. After receiving Rs. 4,00,000/- from the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 paid a bayana amount of Rs. 4,60,000/- to Mr. Paramjeet Singh. However, the Defendants were unable to finalise the deal, because of the Plaintiff’s failure to abide by the Agreement to Sell. Consequently, the bayana amount paid by Defendant No. 1 to Mr. Paramjeet Singh was forfeited, by the latter. It was thus, asserted that there was no merit in the Suit filed by the Plaintiff, which was liable to be dismissed.