IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA, ADJ,

TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI

SUIT NO. CS/269/2014

IN THE MATTER OF:-

SH. MOHINDER SINGH …….. PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

SH. CHANNI RAM …… DEFENDANT

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

1. That the suit filed by the plaintiff is an abuse of the due process of law
and wastage of the precious time of the Hon’ble court, as the plaint
does not disclose any cause of action against the answering
defendant, the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11
of the civil procedure code.

2. That the suit has been filed with the sole purpose to harass and
humiliate the answering defendant, who is a respectable and innocent
law abiding citizen of India.

3. That the suit file by the plaintiff is false and frivolous and the plaintiff
has not approached this Hon’ble court with clean hands. That suit of
the plaintiff is based on the false and fabricated allegations made
against the defendant with ulterior motives to extort money by
misrepresentation and manipulation under the garb of litigation.
Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed has not signed or
executed any agreement/Samjhauta Patra is not on any stamp paper
and it does not have any Revenue Stamp and thus it is a forged and
 fabricated document which stand the scrutiny of law. That after
consultation with his counsel the defendant has already lodged a
Police report with P.S. Moti Nagar in this regard. Moreover there was
no occasion or opportunity to draw this alleged and false samjhauta
patra in terms of the averments as set up by the plaintiff in his false
suit, which prove the falsity of the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff be
put to strict proof
[

5. That the suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has conceal and
suppress the material information on knowingly and intentionally
having malafide intentions to get relief of his choice from this Hon’ble
court. This act of the plaintiff disentitles his from getting any relief
from this Hon’ble Court, as the plaintiff is himself guilty of omissions
and commissions and of his own latches.

6. That the plaint is liable to be dismissed as it is based on mere

conjectures without any substance. The defendant came into content
with the plaintiff through one Shri Uday Chandra Thakur who was
working in an STD Booth. With the passage of time both plaintiff and
defendant, in 2007, decided to pool their sources and start a small
time business of sale & purchase and renting of the properties and
defendant gave two, only signed, cheques with clear understanding
that in case of need one of the cheques, in each property deal, may
be utilized, as security, under information to the defendant.
Sometimes in November/ December. 2007 the plaintiff expressed his
desire to sell his First Floor (without roof rights) of Kothis No. 6/7
Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi measuring 200 Sq Yds. The
defendant made efforts and brokered a deal in January,2008 for the
sale of the said floor and an agreement to sell dated 18.01.2008 was
entered into between the plaintiff and one shri Ram Chander Rai and
the plaintiff shri Mohinder Singh received an advance of Rs.
12,35,000.00, in cash from the purchaser against a total
consideration of Rs. 68,00,000.00 and the balance was to be paid on
or before 18.04.2008. in case seller failed to execute the sale
documents, the purchaser was entitled to receive double the amount
of advance, in terms of para 1 of the terms of Agreement to sell. After
lot of dilly-delaying the deal of this sale could not mature and shri
 Ram Chandra Rai started demanding back double of the advance
given to the plaintiff and thus the plaintiff sought the help/ intervention
of the defendant who was one of the witnesses to the Agreement to
Sell dated 18.01.2008.

7. In the meantime Defendant took a friendly loan Rs. 4,50,000.00 (Rs.

Four lac and fifty thousand only) from the plaintiff in January, 2009
______urgent need. On the insistence of the plaintiff, the defendant,
with his sinore efforts convinced Shri Ram Chander Rai the
purchaser, to agree to receive the principle advance amount of
Rs.12,35,000/- and the plaintiff agreed to refund the amount in
installment to the said purchaser. However, in April 2010 the plaintiff
asked the defendant to pay the entire amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- loan
taken by the defendant from the plaintiff to Sri Ram Chander Rai on
his behalf, against the advance taken by the plaintiff for the sale of his
Flat/floor against the receipt which the defendant paid as desired by
the plaintiff. Thus in deference to the instructions of the plaintiff the
defendant has paid the entire loan amount of Rs 4,50,000/-(Rs. Four
lac and fifty thousand only) on behalf of the plaintiff to Shri Ram,
Chander Rai and a copy of the receipt was duly sent to the plaintiff.
The defendant has thus liquidated the entire loan of the plaintiff by
way of said payment. Thereafter nothing remained due from the
defendant to the plaintiff against the said loan of Rs. 4,50,000/-

8. That the case is beyond limitation.

REPLY ON MERITS

1. That the contents of para 1 of the plaint are wrong and are denied.

2. That the contents of para 2 of the plaint are wrong and are denied
as set-up. Loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- was taken in January,2009 only
and rest of the para is denied being based on sunrises without any
substance.

3. That para 3 is wrong and denied being based on mere conjectures

and without substances. It is denied that the defendant took sum
 of Rs. 4,50,000/- from the plaintiff and as an acknowledgement
and assurance to pay back/ refund the entire amount of
Rs.4,50,000/- the defendant handed over two cheques bearing
No.659294 dated 09-04-2009 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- both
drawn of Bank of Maharashtra, East Patel Nagar Delhi in favour of
the plaintiff as alleged or at all. It is submitted that the defendant
had given two said cheques to the plaintiff in 2007 when both
plaintiff and the defendant decided to start a small time business
of Sale/ Purchase and renting of properties on commission basis,
as the contribution/ security. These cheques bore only the
signatures of the defendant and no other details like. Date, payees
name and amount both in words and _____were filled in. the
plaintiff has forged these cheques for his ulterior motives by
unauthorisedly filling in detail to give semblance of loan refund
which has already been paid on his behalf to the purchaser of his
Floor, as per his instructions.

4. That para 4 of the plaint is false, wrong and hence denied being
the brain child of the plaintiff and without any substance. It is
denied that as assured by the defendant the loan amount was not
paid back to the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff approached the
defendant on several occasions and demanded his money as
alleged or at all. It is further denied that after great personation
and efforts the defendant asked the plaintiff to encase the first
cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- which the plaintiff presented with his
banker Induslnd Bank on 21-04-2009, however the said cheque
bearing No.659294 dated 09-04-2009 returned unpaid to the
plaintiff as the defendant was not having amount with the banker
as alleged or at all. This is a false story knitted by the plaintiff that
tis why he has failed to file the cheque returning memo from both
the baker to prove his banafide. The plaintiff is making vague
assertions without any merit. To prove his falsity it is submitted
that the plaintiff should have filed a complaint under section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. That the contents of para 5 of the plaint are false, wrong and are
vehemently denied. it is denied that thereafter the plaintiff
 contacted the defendant and asked the reason for the said
dishonoring the cheque but the defendant assured the plaintiff that
he would certainly make the payment of the entire loan amount
and made the payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff and sought
some more time for making payment of the balance loan amount
as alleged or at all. It is submitted that there was no opportunity for
the defendant to pay any amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
Thousand Only). Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the allegation
which is without any substance.

6. That para 6 of the plaint is false, wrong and is denied being based
on fanciful thinking of the plaintiff. That however, despite several
requests, letters and visits on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant
did not clear his dues and did not make the entire payment of the
loan amount as alleged or at all. The plaintiff has not filed any
letter or details of visits of the persons on his behalf which proves
the falsehood of his averments in the para.

7. That para 7 of the plaint is false wring and denied being based on
mere conjectures without any substance. It is denied that
thereafter the plaintiff contacted various persons/ common friends
and brought the above said illegal act of the defendant to their
notice, and after their interferes and indulgence, the defendant
agreed to refund his loan amount and also showed his bonafide to
make the payment of interest @ 24% P.A. on the loan amount for
the delays period as alleged or at all. It is a look & bull story
without any substance. There are no details of the common
friends. The defendant never showed his banafide to pay interest
@ 24% or at any rate.

8. That para 8 of the plaint is false, wrong and vehemently denied. it

is denied that in this regard an agreement (Samjhauta Patra) was
signed by the defendant in the present of the plaintiff and other
witness on 28-06-2010 thereby the defendant agreed to make the
payment of the entire loan amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- alongwith
interest @ 24% P.A. thereby specifically agreed to make the
payment of Rs.5,58,000/- as on 28-06-2010 as alleged or at all. It
 is further denied that the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- was
adjusted and a sum of Rs. 5,08,000/- was required to be paid by
the defendant to the plaintiff as alleged or at all. The plaintiff be put
to strict proof of the allegations. It is submitted that the plaintiff is
very running and so homing person. Since the defendant had
already paid the entire loan amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- to shri Ram
chander Rai on behalf of the plaintiff against the advance which
the plaintiff had taken from the said Shri Ram Chander Rai
towards the sale price of the First Floor of the plaintiff in kothi No.
6/7 Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi there was neither any
need nor any occasion to enter into such an Agreement as alleged
by the plaintiff. Further it is the case of the plaintiff that the
defendant was to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by cheque as on
20-12-2010, then how should defendant to enter into an
agreement on 28-06-2010. This is a self contradictory stand of the
plaintiff. Moreover there is no cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- filed. The
cheque no.659296 mentions Rs1,00,000/- in memorials and ‘Two
Lacs Only’ in worlds which does not give credence to the story
knitted by the plaintiff.

9. That the para 9 of the plaint is false, wrong and vehemently denied
as the same is the brain child of the cunning mind of the plaintiff
without any substance. It is denied that on the date of executing
the aforesaid agreement dated 28-06-2010, the defendant also
made the payment of Rs. 8000/- to the plaintiff and assured the
plaintiff a to make the payment of Rs.2,50,000/- on 28-07-2010
and the balance amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- on 28-8-2010 as alleged
or at all. It is further denied that he also made clear in the said
agreement that the aforesaid liability of the defendant was nothing
to do that any other transaction i.e. regarding the deal of the
property no.6/7, Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi and that the
aforesaid amount was his personal liability as alleged or at all. Tge
plaintiff be put to strict proof of the allegations. It is wrong that any
agreement was ever entered into on 28-06-2010. The falsity of the
story as set up by the plaintiff is proved that the plaintiff has not
filed any original alleged agreement/samjhauta Agreement as the
 plaintiff knows it very well that no such agreement was ever
executed. Copy of the document has no value in the eyes of law.

10. That the para 10 of the plaint is false, wrong and vehemently
denied as the same is based on mere conjectures without any
hase. It is denied that the original of the agreement dated 28-06-
2010 taken by the defendant as per acknowledgement of
Rs.8000/- for which no separate receipt was executed, however,
he signed the photocopy of the same in original, as alleged or at
all. It is submitted that no such agreement was ever executed and
as such there was no question of the defendant taken away the
agreement.

11. That the para 11 of the plaint is false, wrong and denied. it is
denied that the plaintiff approached the defendant and requested
him to release the amount but he did not give the satisfactory reply
to the plaintiff as alleged. It is respectfully submitted that the
defendant was no to make any payment to the plaintiff on any,
dated subsequent to when he paid the amount to the purchaser of
the property of the plaintiff and as such no payment was to be paid
by the defendant on 28-7-2010 or 28-8-2010 as alleged.

12. That the para 12 of the plaint is false, wrong is denied. it is denied
that due to the failure of the commitment on part of the defendant
and not responding the request of the plaintiff for refunding the
loan amount, the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 22-9-2010
thereby demanded the entire balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
from the defendant as alleged at all. It is respectfully submitted
that no notice was ever served upon the defendant. The plaintiff
has failed to mention the date of the service of the alleged notice
nor plaintiff has filed any acknowledgement form of the post
office.

13. That the para 13 of the plaint is false, wrong is denied. it is denied
that thereafter the plaintiff continued with the aforesaid demand
and approached the defendant on various occasions and in last
December, 2010 the defendant asked the plaintiff to deposit and
en cash the security cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- which was given vide
 cheque bearing no.659296 dated 10-12-2010 and assured the
plaintiff that the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- would be paid
within short span of time as alleged or at all. It is submitted that the
plea so setup in the para is in contrast to plea taken in earlier
paragraphs by the plaintiff. The plaintiff may kindly be put to strict
proof of the allegations.

14. That the para 14 of the plaint is false, wrong is denied. it is denied
that however, the aforesaid cheque bearing no.659296 dishonored
on 27-12-2010 and therefore, the plaintiff again approached the
defendant and asked the reason for the same al alleged or at all. It
is further denied that on this the defendant again requested the
plaintiff to present the aforesaid cheque again after mid-January,
2011 and assured that the same would be encashed this time as
alleged or at all. It is submitted that there was no opportunity or
need to issue the cheque with date as 20-12-2010 as the
defendant has given cheque no.659296 as blank and another
cheque no.659294 as blank to the plaintiff for starting a small time
business of property dealer/ renting. The plaintiff has mis-used
both the cheque to get wrongfully gain to himself and wrongfull
lose to the defendant. The plaintiff has not filed any cheque any
cheque returning memo the bank which proved his falsity.

15. That the para 15 of the plaint is false, wrong is denied. It is denied
that based on the specified assurance the aforesaid cheque of
Rs.2,00,000/- was again presented by the plaintiff on 24-1-2011,.
However, to the utter shook and surprise to the plaintiff the said
cheque was again dishonoured, as alleged. No bank memo has
been filed.

16. That the para 16 of the plaint is false, wrong is denied. it is denied
that the plaintiff was thus harassed and he suffered mental
tension, pain and agony during all these days besides economic
loss caused due to the illegal act on the part of the defendant as
alleged.

17. That the para 17 of the plaint is false, wrong and vehemently
denied being based on mere conjectures without any substance. It
is denied that the above said act on the part of the defendant is
 highly unethical and amounts to high headedness as alleged. It is
further denied that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the entire
amount of Rs.5,00,000/-( Rs. Five Lac Only) alongwith interest
@24% p.a. i.e. a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- thus a total sum of Rs.
8,20,000/- is due to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff who is
liable to pay to the plaintiff along with pendent elite and future
interest as alleged or at all. It is submitted that the plaintiff is
himself responsible for commissions and commission and other
lathes.

18. That the para 18 of the plaint is false, wrong and vehemently
denied. It is denied that by not paying the legal dues, the
defendant has indulged himself in wrongful gain to himself and
wrongful loss to the plaintiff and also committed breach of trusts
alleged. It is further denied that the plaintiff has been deprived of
the legal dues, which the defendant was legally bound to pay to
the plaintiff as alleged. It is also denied that the plaintiff is entitled
to recover a total sum of Rs.8,20,000/- ( Rs. Eight Lac and Twenty
Thousand Only) from the defendant alongwith pendent elite and
future interest as alleged. It is submitted that the plaintiff is not
entitled to recover any amount from the defendant least of the
amount of Rs.8,20,000/- alongwith any kind of interest. It fact the
defendant in entitled to claim damages from the plaintiff for
causing harassment.

19. That para 19 of the plaint is false, wrong and is denied. it is denied
that any cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff and against
the defendant an any of the dates least of the dates mentioned
under para under reply. It is further denied that the cause of action
is continuous and still subsists as alleged.

20&21. That paras 20 and 21 are legal paras and need no reply.
Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court is not denied.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the suit of the plaintiff

may kindly be dismissed with exemplary cost on the facts and
 circumstances of as mentioned herein above by the interest, in the
interest of justice.

And other or further relief may also be granted in favour of the

defendant and against the plaintiff on the facts and circumstances of
these.

DEFENDANT

THROUGH

DELHI

DATE: -2014

(O.N RATTANPAL)
ADVOCATE

VERIFICATION :

Verified at Delhi on this 6th day of June, 2014, that the content of
Paras no 1 to 18 of Written Statement on merits are true and correct to my
knowledge and those of para no 19 to 20 of the W.S on merits and paras 1
to 8 of preliminary objections correct on the information received and
believed to be correct. The last para is the humble prayer to this Hon’ble
Court.

DEFENDANT
 IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA, ADJ,

TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI

SUIT NO. CS/269/2014

IN THE MATTER OF:-

SH. MOHINDER SINGH …….. PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

SH. CHANNI RAM …… DEFENDANT

EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT

CHANNI RAM (DW-1)

I, Channi Ram S/o Shri Kalyan Ram, Aged About years and
R/o F-265, Karampura, New Delhi do hereby solemny affirm and
declare as under:-

1. That I am the defendant in the above noted case and am well

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and as
such competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That I neither approached the plaintiff nor received any loan Rs.
4,50,000/- from him in April, 2009. Further I had not issued the
cheques bearing no.659294 dated 09-04-2009 for a sum of Rs.
2,50,000/- and cheque no.659296 dated 20-12-2010 for Rs.
2,00,000/- drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, East Patel Nagar, Delhi
in favour of the plaintiff, in discharge of my liability against the said
loan. I have also neither written any ‘Samjhauta Patra; __ I have
signed the same. The photocopy of the Smjhauta Patra does not
bear my signatures. I am also not of its contents.

3. I am law abiding, peaceful and in service and god fearing person.

Same into with she plaintiff through a common friend who was
working in an STD Both. With the passage of time we both,
plaintiff and my self became more friendly any in 2007, decided to
 pool out sources and started small business sale & purchase and
renting of the properties and I have two blank chques which had
only my signatures to the plaintiff with clear understanding that the
cash of need one of the cheques, in cash property deal, my be
utilized, as security under intimation to me. I was to look after
liaison work and the plaintiff to look after the field work. Sometime
in November/December,2007 the plaintiff expressed his desire to
sell his first floor (without roof rights) of Kothis No. 6/7 Punjabi
Bagh Extension, New Delhi measuring 200 Sq Yds. Made efforts
and helped the plaintiff for the sale of his said floor and an
agreement dated 18.01.2008 was entered into between the
plaintiff and one Shri Ram Chander Rai for a total consideration
Rs. 68,00,000.00 and the plaintiff received an advance of
Rs.12,35,000.00 as ‘Bayana’ in cash. The balance was be paid by
the purchaser on or before 18-04-2008 in terms of para 1 of the
agreement, if the seller failed to execute the sales documents, the
purchase was entitled to received double the amount of advance
of the Bayana amount. After lot of dilly-delaying the deal could not
mature and the purchaser start demanding the double of the
advance given to the plaintiff. Thus cornered the plaintiff sought
the help/intervention of mine, as I was one of the witness to the
agreement to sell. This agreement to Exh. DW-1/1 as it bears my
signature as witness and the plaintiff has also admitted the
existence of the agreement.

4. That in the meantime I took a friendly loan of Rs.4,50,000/- ( Rs.

Four Lac and Fifty Thousand Only) from the plaintiff in cash. In
January 2009 for same urgent need. On the insistence of the
plaintiff, I made since efforts convinced Shri Ram Chnder Rai, the
Purchaser, to agree to receive on Rs. 12,35,000.00 and the
plaintiff agreed to refund the amount in installments to the said
purchaser. However in April, 2010, on the asking of the plaintiff I
paid the entire amount of Rs.4,50,000.00 loan, taken from the
plaintiff in January,2009 to the purchaser Shri Ram Chander Rai,
on behalf of the plaint against receipt. Thus in deference to the
instructions of the plaintiff I paid the entire loan amount of
Rs.4,50,000/- to Shri Ram Chander Rai and __ of the receipt was
 sent to the plaintiff. Thus nothing remained due from me the
plaintiff. While sending receipts to the plaintiff I also requested the
plaintiff to return my security cheques given in 2007 bearing
nos.659294 & 659296 since it was not possible to continue our
joint venture of Sale/ Purchase & Renting of properties. The letter
dated 08-04-2010 addressed to plaintiff laongwith receipt are Ex.
DW-1/2( colly).

5. That I had not taken any loan from the plaintiff in April, 2009. And
had not issued the two cheques bearing no. 659294 dated 09-04-
2009 for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and cheque no.659296 dated 20-
12-2010 as acknowledgement of the said loan. I had issued these
two cheques nos 659294 and 659296 in the year 2007 to the
plaintiff when we decided to start a small time business of sale/
purchase of property and renting. These cheques did not have any
date name of the plaintiff and the amounts mentioned in these
cheques, but only my signatures. These cheques were given as
security to be used in need for finalising any sale/ purchase deal.
The plaintiff has forged these cheque by unauthorisedly filling in
details to give semblance of loan refund. The plaintiff never
approached me for refund of the loan, as no loan was due from
me. I never asked the plaintiff to encash the cheque for Rs.
2,50,000.00 which I never gave by filling in all details. No cheque
of mine had bounced.

6. That I never assured the plaintiff to make payment of entire loan

allegedly taken by me from him in April, 2009. I had not paid any
amount of Rs. 50,000.00 to the plaintiff as there was no
opportunity nor any liability the pay that amount. The plaintiff never
visited my office nor write any letter for the refund of any loan. I
had never agreed to refund the loan with the indulgence and
interference of common friends and agreed to pay intrest @ 24%
p.a. on the loan for delayed payment. No Samjhauta Patra
(Agreement) was signed by me.

No amount of Rs.50,000/- was adjusted nor an amount of

Rs. 8000/- paid. As I had already paid Rs. 4,50,000/- taken in
January 2009, to Shri Ram Chnder Rai at the behest of the
 plaintiff, there was neit any need nor any ocoassion to enter into
such a ‘SAMJRAUTA PATRA’ ( agreement) I had never agreed to
pay Rs. 2,50,000/- on 28-07.2010 and balance of Rs. 2,50,000 on
28-08-2010.

7. That no legal notice dated 22-9-2010 has been received by me, no

a is due to the plaintiff from the dependent least of the amount of
Rs. 8,20,000/-. The plaintiff has mis-used the security cheques by
unautherisedlly and illegally filling in the details in these security
cheques. The plaintiff was never asked to deposit any cheque in
Decembe,2010 or on any date. By filing this false and frivolous
case the deponent is suffering harassment and humiliation, mental
agony.

8. That the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount from the
dependent least of the amount of Rs. 8,20,000.00 ( Rs. Eight and
Twenty Thousand Only) nor the plaintiff is entitled to recover any
interest.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:-

Verified at Delhi on this___ day of May, 2015 that the contents of my

affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA, ADJ,

TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI

SUIT NO. CS/269/2014

IN THE MATTER OF:-

SH. MOHINDER SINGH …….. PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

SH. CHANNI RAM …… DEFENDANT

EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT UDAY

CHANDRA THAKUR (DW-2)

I, Uday Chandra Thakur S/o Late Ram Pdartha Thakur aged

about 52 years and R/o RZ-K-2/79, Nihal Vihal, Near Nangloi, Delhi,
do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That I know both Shri Mohinder Singh, the plaintiff and Shri
Channi Ram, the defendant who used to visit the STD
Booth/Shop where I had been working earlier.

2. That both plaintiff and defendant had started a sale/purchase

and renting business in a small way some times in 2007. The
defendant had told me that he had given two cheques as
security, only signed, to the plaintiff to be used in connection
with property deal as the plaintiff was to do filed work and
defendant to do liaison work with govt. agencies, as he
working in shifting in Delhi Jal Board.

3. That the defendant Shri Channi Ram helped Shri Mohinder

Singh in the sale of his first floor, without roof rights, of his
kothi No.6/7, Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi measuring
200 SQ. Yds. A deal to sell the said floor was finalized and on
18-01-2008 and on 18-01-2008 the plaintiff entered into an
 agreement to sell which is already Ex. DW-1/1 (colly) with one
Shri Ram Chander Rai for a consideration of Rs.
68,00,000.00. It was also agreed that an amount of Rs.
12,35,000.00 was to be paid as advance/ bayana. The said
agreement was signed in my presence by both the purchaser
and seller and I identify their signatures at ‘A’ and ‘B’. I had
signed as witness no.1 and defendant as witness no.2. a
receipt was also typed at the last page of the agreement and
the plaintiff started counting the bayana and in the meantime I
went to my shop, as I received an urgent call, alongwith the
defendant.

4. That, however, the deal of the above sale could not nature
and the defendant paid an amount of Rs.4,50,000.00 on
behalf of the plaintiff to the purchaser Shri Ram Chander Rai
vide receiving dated 05.04.2010 which is Ex. DW-/2. The
purchaser has signed this receipt as witness no.1 which
bears my signatures at point ‘B’. Another person namely Shri
Arvinder Seth signed as witness no.2.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION :

Verified at Delhi on this day of March, 2016, and I say that the
contents of my affidavit have been read over to me in my vernacular and the
same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, no part of it is false
and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEFENDANT