JUDGMENT
Surya Kant, J.
Leave Granted.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated
15.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby
a second appeal preferred by the Appellants was dismissed and
judgment and decree of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court were affirmed. The decree entitled the Respondent for the
recovery of earnest money, which constituted of partly paid sale
consideration in lieu of the concerned agreements to sale along with
requisite interest. The factual matrix is succinctly discussed before
delving into the issue of law regarding breach of contractual terms
which requires adjudication before us.
A. FACTS
The subject matter of the original suit was a property measuring
23 Kanals 4 Marlas bearing Khewat No. 226, Khatoni No. 225, Rect.
No. 27, Kila No 3 min (29),
4 min (415),
7(80),
14(40)
situated in
the revenue estate of Village Tigra, Tehsil and District Gurgaon
(hereinafter, ‘Concerned Property’) which the Appellants jointly owned
to the extent of their respective shares.
Two separate agreements to sell were entered between the
present parties for the Concerned Property on 17.02.2004 (hereinafter,
‘Sale Agreements’). In the first agreement, Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 agreed
to sell their share to the extent of 4/5th of the Concerned Property
while in the second agreement, Appellant No. 5 agreed to sell the
remaining 1/5th share to the Respondent which accrued to her and
her minor son. It must be noted that the material terms of both
agreements are identical except that in the second agreement,
Appellant No. 5 was contractually bound to secure the permission
under The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 to sell the
share of the minor.
Under the Sale Agreements, the sale consideration was set at the
rate of Rs 79,00,000/per
acre. Accordingly, the Respondent is stated
to have paid Rs 22,90,000/in
total as part payment of the sale
consideration which was in the nature of earnest money. As per
Clause 4 of Sale Agreements, the earnest money could be confiscated
by the Appellants if the sale deed was not executed on prescribed date,
i.e. 16.08.2004 (hereinafter, ‘Date of Execution’). Furthermore, as per
Clause 8 of the Sale Agreements, the Respondent was also liable to
secure all the necessary No Objection Certificates (hereinafter, ‘NOC’).
Additionally, he had to also intimate the Appellants regarding the
grant of NOCs well before the Date of Execution, failing which the
agreement was deemed to be cancelled.
