CHAUDHARY RAMBABU SINGH Vs. DILIP KUMAR
LAWS(MPH)-1980-10-3
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on October 25,1980

CHAUDHARY RAMBABU SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
DILIP KUMAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GURIZALA VUDDANDAM VS. JULURI VENKATAKAMESWARA RAO [REFERRED TO]
ANANDILAL VS. ABDUL HUSSAIN [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MUDUREDDIPALLE SANJEEVA REDDY VS. BUTTURU RAMA MOHAN REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2009-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
MUDUREDDIPALLE SANJEEVA REDDY VS. BUTTURU RAMA MOHAN REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2009-10-41] [REFERRED TO]
N.SURESH VS. INDIAN BANK [LAWS(MAD)-2013-3-202] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.R.Navkar, J. - (1.)This is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 6-5-1978, passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Gwalior who is invested with Small Cause Courts Powers, in case No. 24 of 1976, Small Cause Suit.
(2.)The facts of the case are that one Ram Swarup, who is now dead, was the plaintiff. He filed a suit against the defendant in the Court of Small Causes, Gwalior, for refund of earnest money of Rs. 500/- along with the interest thereon at the rate of 1 per cent per month, amounting to Rs. 183/-. In all, he claimed Rs. 683/-.
(3.)The plaintiffs claim was that the applicant (defendant) entered into a eon- tract of sale of the house located at Morar on 12-1-1968, for Rupees 20,000/ only and obtained Rs. 500/- from the plaintiff as earnest money and executed an agreement of sale in his favour. The defendant promised to execute the sale-deed by 31-3-1968. The defendant, however, is avoiding the sale. While in the meantime, it was discovered by the plaintiff that one Kesrimal has put his lock on one of the inner rooms, which is in the property to be sold to the plaintiff. Seeing this that the possession of the whole of the property will not be given to the plaintiff a notice was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant on 183-1968 to come to him and decide the matter regarding the possession and execute a registered sale-deed. The plaintiff also insisted that the possession should be handed over to him. The defendant replied by notice dated 20-31968 but he did not execute the sale-deed as agreed. After this, one more notice was given to the defendant, but he kept silent. As to the inner room on which somebody else's lock was there, the defendant stated that this room is already in the tenancy of the plaintiff from the beginning and as such, there is no question of handing over possession of that room to the plaintiff. On these facts, the plaintiff alleged in the plaint that as the defendant has committed a breach of contract, the plaintiff is entitled to refund of his earnest money along with interest which amounted to Rs. 683/- in all.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.