Evidence affidavits of defendants DW-1 and DW-2 in suit for specific performance and recovery
0 of 47 blanks filled
IN THE COURT OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DISTRICT NORTH-WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
C.S. No. Civil suit number of 20Suit year
IN THE MATTER OF:
Plaintiff's name… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Defendants' names… DEFENDANTS
EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 (DW-1)
AFFIDAVIT OF Defendant no.1's name, aged about Defendant no.1's age years, W/o Defendant No. 1's husband's name, R/o Defendant No. 1's address, Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1.That I am Defendant No. 1 in the present case and, as such, I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the Plaintiff himself contacted the Deponent and Defendant No. 2 through one broker, Sh. Broker's name (DW-1), and asked them to purchase the above-said premises, which the Deponent agreed to sell. A sum of Bayana amount received (DW-1) was received as Bayana for the sale of the suit property vide agreement-cum-Bayana receipt dated Date of agreement-cum-Bayana receipt (DW-1). The Plaintiff, the Deponent and Defendant No. 2 share close relations and have been engaged in several dealings with one another.
3.That at the time of the said agreement/Bayana receipt dated Date of agreement-cum-Bayana receipt (DW-1), it was agreed that the sale documents of the said house shall be executed within a period of eighty days from the date of execution of the agreement, subject to the purchaser making the balance payment to the seller, and that the stamp papers for the same were to be purchased by the purchaser. The said stamp papers were never purchased by the Plaintiff.
4.That the Plaintiff asked the husband of the seller, i.e. Defendant No. 2, for an extension of fifteen days' time, as he could not arrange the balance payment by the said date, i.e. Original due date for balance payment/execution (DW-1), being eighty days from the date of the agreement/Bayana. The Deponent and Defendant No. 2 agreed to the extension, as they shared close relations with the Plaintiff. It is further stated that even after the extended time, the Plaintiff could not arrange the balance sale consideration; accordingly, as per the Bayana agreement dated Date of agreement-cum-Bayana receipt (DW-1), his Bayana stands forfeited.
5.That the Plaintiff is running an institute under the name and style of "Plaintiff's institute name (DW-1)", wherein admissions to educational institutions across the world were manipulated. In the same manner, the Plaintiff assured the Deponent and Defendant No. 2 that he would secure a seat in the I.P. University for the daughter of the Deponent and Defendant No. 2 in the MBA course, in which the Plaintiff failed, and he promised to refund the cheque of Amount of refund cheque promised (DW-1) which he had received from the Deponent in lieu of getting/manipulating the seat in the MBA course in the I.P. University.
6.That the house was given on rent to Mr. Tenant's name (DW-1) on a monthly rent of Monthly rent amount (DW-1) per month, about three years prior to the date of the Bayana agreement, i.e. Date of agreement-cum-Bayana receipt (DW-1), and the same was got vacated by the Deponent and Defendant No. 2 on Date property was vacated (DW-1), only to hand over vacant possession to the Plaintiff at the time of execution of the documents. It is submitted that the Plaintiff himself requested an extension of fifteen days' time for execution of the documents, as he could not arrange the balance sale consideration, which the Deponent agreed to, as they shared close relations with the Plaintiff.
7.That after some time, when the extended time expired, the Plaintiff told the Deponent and Defendant No. 2 that he was unable to arrange the balance sale consideration. The Deponent told the Plaintiff that the Deponent had purchased a floor for Amount for which Deponent purchased a floor (DW-1) and had also entered into an agreement with one Sh. Seller of top floor property (DW-1), Seller's address (DW-1), and had paid Bayana paid for top floor property (DW-1) to him as Bayana for the pair of 32 sq. metre floor, H. No(s). House number of top floor property (DW-1), Address of top floor property (DW-1) (Top Floor), vide agreement-cum-Bayana receipt dated Date of agreement for top floor property (DW-1), and the balance payment was to be made on Date for balance payment for top floor property (DW-1), about one month after the date of execution of the document vide agreement dated Date of agreement-cum-Bayana receipt (DW-1), and the payment received from the Plaintiff by the Deponent was to be given to the seller of the Address of top floor property (DW-1) (Top Floor). Later, as the Plaintiff could not make the balance payment, the Deponent also could not make the payment for the floor purchased by the Defendant, i.e. Address of top floor property (DW-1) (Top Floor), and the earnest money of Bayana paid for top floor property (DW-1) paid by the Deponent was forfeited by the seller. Hence, the Deponent has suffered a loss of Loss suffered by Deponent (DW-1) with interest and other losses due to the non-payment by the Plaintiff to the Deponent, for which the Deponent reserves the right to file a counter-claim/suit within a reasonable time. It is further submitted that, as the Deponent shares close family relations with the Plaintiff, he used to take care of the Deponent and her husband when they fell ill. It is submitted that in Month Defendant No. 2 fell ill (DW-1), Defendant No. 2 became seriously ill, and the Plaintiff admitted him to Hospital name (DW-1), Rohini, and saved the life of Defendant No. 2, as his sons were out of station; hence, the Plaintiff is now emotionally blackmailing the Deponent and her husband.
8.That the Plaintiff asked the husband of the seller, i.e. Defendant No. 2, for an extension of fifteen days' time, as he could not arrange the balance payment, which the Deponent agreed to, as they shared close relations with the Plaintiff. Hence, as the Plaintiff could not make the balance sale consideration as per the Bayana agreement even after the extended time, his Bayana stands forfeited.
9.That the Plaintiff is running an institute under the name and style of "Plaintiff's institute name (DW-1)", wherein admissions to educational institutions across the world were manipulated. In the same manner, the Plaintiff assured the Deponent that he would secure a seat in the I.P. University for the daughter of the Deponent in the MBA course, in which the Plaintiff failed, and he promised to refund the cheque of Amount of refund cheque promised (DW-1) which he had received from the Deponent in lieu of getting/manipulating the seat in the MBA course in the I.P. University.
10.That the suit has been filed after about two years from the date fixed for execution of the documents for transfer of the property in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff himself could not arrange the balance sale consideration; hence, this suit has been filed with an ulterior motive and is liable to be dismissed as a fraudulent case.
11.That the Deponent and her husband were never served with any notice at any point of time.
12.That the Plaintiff could not arrange the balance payment in time, even after the extended period of fifteen days. Had the Plaintiff arranged the balance payment, he would have filed a suit for specific performance in Month specific performance suit ought to have been filed (DW-1) and not a suit for recovery in Month recovery suit was filed (DW-1) (after about two years). The fact of the matter is that the Plaintiff himself was aware that, if he were to file a suit for specific performance, the Defendant would have said that he may make the balance payment on the first date of hearing and the matter would conclude. That is why he waited for two years.
13.That the Plaintiff himself could not arrange the balance sale consideration; the Plaintiff has filed a false and fraudulent case, and he himself is a defaulter.
14.That whatever is stated hereinabove is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this Date of verification (DW-1) day of Verification month (DW-1), 20Verification year (DW-1), that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 14 of my above evidence affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and nothing has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DISTRICT NORTH-WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
C.S. No. Civil suit number of 20Suit year
IN THE MATTER OF:
Plaintiff's name… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Defendants' names… DEFENDANTS
EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT NO. 2 (DW-2)
AFFIDAVIT OF Defendant no.2's name, aged about Defendant no.2's age years, S/o Sh. Defendant No. 2's father's name, R/o Defendant No. 2's address, Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1.That I am Defendant No. 2 in the present case and, as such, I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the Plaintiff himself contacted the Deponent and Defendant No. 1 through one broker, Sh. Broker's name (DW-2), and asked them to purchase the above-said premises, which the Deponent agreed to sell. A sum of Bayana amount received (DW-2) was received as Bayana for the sale of the suit property vide agreement-cum-Bayana receipt dated Date of agreement-cum-Bayana receipt (DW-2). The Plaintiff, the Deponent and Defendant No. 1 share close relations and have been engaged in several dealings with one another.
3.I further state that at the time of the aforesaid agreement/Bayana receipt dated 22.09.2010, it was agreed that the sale documents of the said house shall be executed within a period of eighty days from the date of execution of the said agreement, subject to the purchaser making payment of the balance sale consideration to the seller, and that the stamp papers for the said documents were to be purchased by the purchaser. The said stamp papers were never purchased by the plaintiff.
4.I further state that the plaintiff requested the Deponent for an extension of fifteen days' time, as he was unable to arrange the balance payment by the stipulated date, i.e., 11.12.2010, being eighty days from the date of the agreement/Bayana. The Deponent and Defendant No. 1 agreed to the said extension on account of their close relations with the plaintiff. It is further stated that even after the extended period, the plaintiff failed to arrange the balance sale consideration, and consequently, as per the Bayana agreement dated 22.09.2010, the Bayana of the plaintiff stands forfeited.
5.I further state that the plaintiff is running an institute under the name and style of "Name of the institute run by the plaintiff" wherein admissions to educational institutions across the world were arranged/manipulated. In the same manner, the plaintiff assured the Deponent and Defendant No. 1 of securing a seat for the daughter of the Deponent and Defendant No. 1 in the MBA Course in I.P. University, in which the plaintiff failed, and he promised to refund the cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) which he had received from the Deponent in lieu of securing/manipulating the said seat in the MBA Course in I.P. University.
6.I further state that the said house had been let out on rent to Name of the tenant to whom the house was let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 11,000/- (Eleven Thousand) approximately three years prior to the date of the Bayana agreement, i.e., 22.09.2010. The said house was got vacated by the Deponent and Defendant No. 1 on 25.11.2010 solely for the purpose of handing over vacant possession to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the sale documents. It is submitted that the plaintiff himself requested an extension of fifteen days' time for execution of the documents, as he was unable to arrange the balance sale consideration, which extension the Deponent agreed to on account of their close relations with the plaintiff.
7.It is further stated that after some time, when the extended period expired, the plaintiff informed the Deponent and Defendant No. 1 that he was unable to arrange the balance sale consideration. The Deponent informed the plaintiff that the Deponent had purchased a floor for Rs. 51,00,000/- (Fifty-One Lakh) and had also entered into an agreement with one Sh. Name of the seller of the top floor property, and had paid Rs. 6,00,000/- (Six Lakh) to him as Bayana in respect of the property bearing House/property number of the top floor property, Locality/colony of the top floor property, Delhi (Top Floor), vide agreement-cum-Bayana receipt dated 30.10.2010, and that the balance payment was to be made on 15.01.2011, i.e., about one month after the stipulated date of execution of the documents vide agreement dated 22.09.2010. The payment received from the plaintiff by the Deponent was to be paid to the seller of the property bearing House/property number of the top floor property, Locality/colony of the top floor property, Delhi (Top Floor). Subsequently, as the plaintiff failed to make the balance payment, the Deponent was also unable to make the payment for the floor purchased by the defendants, i.e., the property bearing House/property number of the top floor property, Locality/colony of the top floor property, Delhi (Top Floor), and the earnest money of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Six Lakh) paid by the Deponent was forfeited by the seller. Hence, the Deponent has suffered a loss of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) with interest, together with other losses, due to the non-payment by the plaintiff to the Deponent, for which the Deponent reserves the right to file a counter-claim/suit within a reasonable time. It is further submitted that as the Deponent shares close family relations with the plaintiff, the plaintiff used to take care of the Deponent and his wife when they fell ill. It is submitted that in December, 2010, Defendant No. 2 fell seriously ill, and the plaintiff got him admitted to Name of the hospital in Rohini, Rohini, and saved the life of the Deponent, as his sons were out of station; hence, the plaintiff is now emotionally blackmailing the Deponent and his wife.
8.I further state that the plaintiff requested the Deponent for an extension of fifteen days' time, as he was unable to arrange the balance payment, which extension the Deponent agreed to on account of their close relations with the plaintiff. Hence, as the plaintiff failed to make the balance sale consideration as per the Bayana agreement even after the extended period, his Bayana stands forfeited.
9.I further state that the plaintiff is running an institute under the name and style of "Name of the institute run by the plaintiff" wherein admissions to educational institutions across the world were arranged/manipulated. In the same manner, the plaintiff assured the Deponent of securing a seat for the daughter of the Deponent in the MBA Course in I.P. University, in which the plaintiff failed, and he promised to refund the cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) which he had received from the Deponent in lieu of securing/manipulating the said seat in the MBA Course in I.P. University.
10.I further state that the present suit has been filed after a period of about two years from the date fixed for execution of the documents for transfer of the property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff himself failed to arrange the balance sale consideration; hence, the present suit has been filed with an ulterior motive and is liable to be dismissed as a fraudulent case.
11.I further state that the Deponent and his wife were never served with any notice at any point of time.
12.I further state that the plaintiff failed to arrange the balance payment in time, even after the extended period of fifteen days. Had the plaintiff arranged the balance payment, he would have filed a suit for specific performance in December, 2010, and not a suit for recovery in September, 2012 (after a period of about two years). The fact of the matter is that the plaintiff himself was aware that if he were to file a suit for specific performance, the defendants would have responded that he should make the balance payment on the first date of hearing itself, and the matter would stand concluded. That is why the plaintiff waited for a period of two years.
13.I further state that the plaintiff himself could not arrange the balance sale consideration; the plaintiff has filed a false and fraudulent case and is himself a defaulter.
14.I hereby state that whatever is stated hereinabove is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this Date of verification (DW-2) day of November, 2023, that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 14 of my above evidence affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT