Summary
The buyer’s refund remained limited to Rs.3 lakh with 12% annual interest because the alleged further Rs.15 lakh payment was not proved. The later-payment receipts were not produced, the initial notice omitted the substantial alleged payment, and the endorsement’s execution sequence raised doubt. The Court left the final refusal of specific performance untouched and dismissed the buyer’s appeal.
Issues
- Whether the buyer proved the additional Rs.15 lakh payment beyond the admitted and established Rs.3 lakh advance.
- What parts of the underlying decree remained open in this appeal.
Held
- Only the refund quantum was in issue. The plaintiff had not appealed refusal of specific performance, the defendant had not challenged the finding that the agreement was executed, and the separate execution claimant had not approached the Supreme Court. Those matters had attained finality for this appeal. (¶¶ 8, 9, 11)
- The original Rs.3 lakh advance was proved, but the alleged subsequent Rs.15 lakh rested on the plaintiff’s account without adequate corroboration. Though he claimed stamped receipts had been obtained, none was produced. The copy of the endorsement showed the witness’s signature before the vendor’s, adding to the evidentiary concerns. (¶ 11)
- The initial suit notice did not mention the alleged substantial later payment or endorsement, although they appeared in later pleadings and a subsequent notice. On the cumulative evidence, the High Court correctly held that the additional payment had not been established by positive evidence. The Court declined to disturb its factual conclusion. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- The appeal was dismissed and the parties directed to bear their own costs. The decree permitting recovery of Rs.3 lakh with 12% annual interest from the date of suit until realisation remained operative. (¶¶ 7, 13, 14)
Result
Appeal dismissed; refund limited to Rs.3 lakh with 12% interest annually from institution of the suit until realisation. Parties to bear their own costs.