R.S.A. No.1203 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.1203 of 2008 Date of Decision:31.10.2008 Niranjan Dass .....Appellant Vs. Suresh Kumar .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment/ decree dated 19.2.2008 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment/decree dated 22.8.2006 rendered by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Samana whereby he decreed the suit for the recovery of Rs.50,000/-, i.e., the earnest money with proportionate costs together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of execution of the agreement to sell dated 23.11.1996 till the date of decision of the suit and future interest at the rate of Rs.6% per annum from the date of decision of the suit till realisation of the afore-mentioned amount and dismissed the suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell and permanent injunction. As set up by the plaintiff, the defendant entered into an agreement to sell the house on 23.11.1996 in favour of the plaintiff for a R.S.A. No.1203 of 2008 -2- consideration of Rs.4 lacs and executed the agreement after having received Rs.50,000/- as earnest money. As agreed upon, the sale deed was to be executed and registered on 30.1.1997 on which date the possession of the house was also to be delivered. On the aforesaid date, the plaintiff accompanied by his father went to the office of Sub Registrar, Samana to get the sale deed executed and registered, but the defendant did not turn up. The plaintiff got his presence marked before the Sub Registrar, Samana and got his affidavit attested from the Executive Magistrate, Samana. On 31.3.1997, again, he approached the defendant and requested him to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration but in vain. He has always been and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but the defendant has failed to perform his part intentionally and willfully. The defendant is now bent upon to alienate the suit house to a third person. On these allegations, the suit was filed. In his written statement, the defendant has repudiated the execution of the alleged agreement in favour of the plaintiff as well as receipt of the earnest money. As alleged, the plaintiff, Vijay Kumar - son of Dharam Chand and Subhash Chand - son of Mukandi Lal being friends inter-se manipulated and obtained the signatures of the answering defendant on some papers after having dragged him by serving liquor. Subhash Chand and Vijay Kumar were also harassing defendant by one or the other way. The alleged sale agreement is illegal, null and void, forged and fabricated document prepared by the plaintiff in connivance with the attesting witnesses and the same is without consideration. Lastly, it has been prayed that the suit may be dismissed with costs. The following issues were framed:- R.S.A. No.1203 of 2008 -3- 1. Whether the defendant agreed to sell property in question vide agreement dated 23.11.1996 for a sum of Rs.4 Lacs? OPP 2. Whether the defendant received Rs.50,000/- as earnest money? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP 4. Whether in the alternative, plaintiff is entitled to refund of the earnest money alongwith damages? OPP 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 6. Whether the agreement dated 23.11.96 is result of fraud, as alleged in the written statement? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession by way of specific performance of the contract? OPP 8. Relief. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit in the terms as noted supra. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the defendant- Niranjan Dass went up in appeal which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide his judgment/ decree dated 19.2.2008. Being undaunted and dissatisfied therewith, he has preferred this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record as well as the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and circumspection. The short argument raised by Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate, R.S.A. No.1203 of 2008 -4- on behalf of the appellant is that the learned trial Court was not justified in allowing interest at the rate of Rs.12% per annum from the date of execution of agreement to sell dated 23.11.1996 till the date of decision of the suit in view of the prevalent rate of interest in the banking sector. Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate representing the plaintiff- respondent countered this argument by urging with great eloquence that the prevalent rate of interest in the banking sector again has arisen and that being so, there is no scope to reduce the rate of interest allowed by the learned trial Court. I have well considered the rival contentions. The prevalent rate of interest in the banking sector has been scaled down to 9% P.A. As such, the impugned judgments as well as decrees are modified to the extent that instead of 12% per annum, the plaintiff- respondent shall be entitled to recover interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- from the date of execution of the agreement to sell dated 23.11.1996 till the date of the decision of the suit besides future interest at the rate of Rs.6% per annum on the said amount from the date of passing of the decree by the learned trial Court till actual realisation. With this modification, this appeal fails and is dismissed. October 31, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No