R.S.A.No.625 of 2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A.No.625 of 2006
Date of Decision : 28.08.2009
Usha Rani etc. ...Appellants
Versus
Abhey Dev etc. ...Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate,
for the respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the
judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby
the suit for recovery of earnest money alongwith interest thereon, was
decreed.
On 24.5.1989, the defendants agreed to sell land measuring 1
Kanals 11 Marlas at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. yard. Rs.25,000/- was
paid as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before
14.8.1989. Admittedly, the land stands acquired vide notification under
Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 25.9.1989. In view of
the acquisition of land in dispute, the agreement was not capable of
specific performance and, therefore, the plaintiffs have claimed the
R.S.A.No.625 of 2006 2
refund of the earnest money alongwith interest thereon.
Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that
the defendants have issued notice Ex.D-2 dated 23.4.1990 calling upon
the plaintiffs to execute the sale deed and to remit the sale consideration
by bank draft or to deposit the balance sale consideration in the bank
account of the defendants. The plaintiffs have failed to deposit the
balance sale consideration, therefore, the suit for recovery of the earnest
money could not have been decreed, as the plaintiffs have not proved to
be ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The said
argument is without any merit. The land was subject matter of
acquisition vide notification under Section 4 of the Act. The willingness
of the defendants to execute the sale deed was in a way trap for the
plaintiffs as to deprive them of their money. Therefore, non-execution of
the sale deed in pursuance of the notice Ex.D-2 is wholly in
consequential.
The other argument raised is that interest at the rate of 18%
from the date of receipt of the money till the filing of the suit is highly
excessive. I do not find any merit in such argument. The defendants
have kept the money for a long period even though the land was subject
matter of the acquisition was acquired by the State Government. The
plaintiffs were wrongly deprived of their money. The rate of interest of
18% is just as compensation in these circumstances. As a matter of fact,
the first Appellate Court has granted future interest at the rate of 6%
which can be said to be not justified, keeping in view the wrongful
detation of the amount of the plaintiffs. But since the defendants are not
R.S.A.No.625 of 2006 3
in cross-appeal, such rate of interest cannot be interfered with.
Therefore, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in
the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court,
which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the second
appeal at the instance of the defendants.
Dismissed.
28.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE