2007 (2) TMI 695 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sale agreement and payment of consideration.
2. Entitlement to possession of the property.
3. Admissibility of evidence contradicting the written agreement.
4. Relief granted by the District Forum, State Commission, and National Commission.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Sale Agreement and Payment of Consideration:
The appellant, a construction company, and the respondent, a purchaser, entered into an agreement dated 27.7.1997 for the sale of an office room for Rs. 7,75,000/-. The respondent initially issued cheques totaling Rs. 9,00,000/-, which were returned uncashed. Subsequently, a cheque for Rs. 5,00,000/- was issued and encashed. The respondent claimed to have paid an additional Rs. 4,00,000/- in cash, which the company denied. The District Forum found no evidence of the cash payment and upheld the written agreement's terms.

2. Entitlement to Possession of the Property:
The respondent sought possession of the office room, claiming full payment. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, directing the respondent to either pay the balance amount with interest and obtain possession or demand a refund of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest. The State Commission remanded the case, and upon further evidence, the District Forum reiterated its stance, finding no proof of the alleged cash payment.

3. Admissibility of Evidence Contradicting the Written Agreement:
The National Commission dismissed the company's revision, decrying builders' practices of demanding cash payments. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that u/s 91 of the Evidence Act, evidence contradicting the written agreement is inadmissible. The respondent's case in evidence was at variance with his complaint, and no receipt or independent evidence supported the cash payment claim.

4. Relief Granted by the District Forum, State Commission, and National Commission:
The District Forum's decision was to allow the respondent to pay the balance and take possession or get a refund with interest. The State Commission modified this, directing possession based on full payment, which the National Commission upheld. The Supreme Court found the State and National Commissions' reasoning unsustainable, restoring the District Forum's decision and dismissing the respondent's claims of cash payment as unproven.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decisions of the State and National Commissions, and restored the District Forum's decision, emphasizing the inadmissibility of evidence contradicting the written agreement and the lack of proof for the alleged cash payment. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.