Kishan Chand vs Ram Lal

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—Krishan Chand, who is unsuccessful plaintiff, has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below, vide which the suit fled by him for specific performance of the agreement dated 9.10.1986 as well as his alternative suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000/ has been dismissed while holding that the plaintiffappellant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and that rather he committed breach of the agreement. On the other hand, it was also held that the defendantrespondent always remained ready and willing and he did not commit any breach of the agreement.

The aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court were duly confirmed by the first Appellate Court. The findings recorded by the Courts below are pure findings of facts and the same cannot be interfered in the Regular Second Appeal.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at least the appellant is entitled to Rs. 10,000/ which he gave as earnest money to the respondent. He further submitted that the appellant and the respondent are real brothers. Counsel for the respondent, on getting instructions from his client, who is present in the Court, states that the respondent is ready to return Rs. 10,000/, which he received as earnest money in this case. He further states that the respondent is ready to return Rs. 10,000/, which he received as earnest money in this case. He further states that respondent will return this amount within six months, failing which he will pay interest to the appellant on the said amount at the rate of 6% from the date of agreement.

In view of the aforesaid, the Regular Second Appeal is partly allowed. The alternative suit of the appellant for recovery of the earnest amount of Rs. 10,000/ is decreed with no order as to costs.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.