Back
In the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
P. Pandit Rao (died) by L.Rs. and others – Appellant
Versus
K. Damodar Rao and another – Respondents
CCCA No. 223 of 2001
Decided on : 08-07-2005
Headnote:
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Section 8,16,20,22(2) - Contract act - Agreement of sale - Suit for Schedule Property - Relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale marked as - Respondents pleaded that in month of June appellants offered to sell suit schedule property bearing Municipal admeasuring about yards situated at Hyderabad for a consideration of lakhs - A sum of is said to have been paid on date of agreement and a sum of on several dates prior to that - It was alleged that agreement was entered through their Special Power of Attorney - They pleaded that though they made several requests to appellants for execution of registered sale deed they did not come forward and left with no alternative they filed suit for specific performance - It was stated that they are ready and willing to pay balance consideration of lakhs - Appellant is father and appellants are his children - All of them have filed a common written-statement - At a later point of time written statement was amended by including certain paragraphs - Gist of defence is that they never agreed to sell suit schedule property to respondents nor they received a sum of as pleaded - It was urged that appellant by name was a minor and that is invalid in law - They pleaded that appellant used to have money transactions with one who is brother-in-law of respondent and a sum of lakh was borrowed from said with a promise to repay same after two years and taking advantage of need of appellant got executed with an object to secure repayment of lakh after years with interest at per annum - Mentioned is stated to be interest portion - Appellants pleaded that suit agreement was nominal and executed for purpose of repayment of amount - Whether suit agreement was executed by defendants under undue influence and coercion of first defendant and as such is not binding and enforceable as against defendants ? Whether suit agreement is not supported by consideration? Whether suit against defendant is premature? Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance as prayed for? To what relief? - Whether there exist any circumstances to deny relief of specific performance to respondents - Whether respondents established their claim for relief of specific performance of ? Whether appellant was a minor when was executed and if so consequences thereof - Held, It is possible to argue that even if appellant was a minor transaction can be separated only to extent of his share - However it is a matter of record that suit schedule property was by and that in or in schedule attached to it extents of individual interests or shares of concerned vendors are not shown - That being case their interests are indivisible and transaction gets vitiated as a whole - Where appellants agreed to sell property under and relief claimed in suit is one for specific performance - However material that was placed by parties before Court discloses that case has certain other ramifications also - In fact this appeal and arising out of which appellants herein and sisters of respondent are parties were heard together - But for fact that there exist certain aspects which are typical to each case this Court would have disposed of both appeals through a common judgment - Section 16 of Specific Relief Act requires that a party seeking relief of specific performance of agreement shall plead that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract - Form which is proforma of plaint in a suit for specific performance contains such a clause - It is true that in instant case respondents incorporated a clause to that effect in plaint - Section 20 is another important provision under Specific Relief Act - It delineates jurisdiction of Court in matter of granting relief of specific performance of a contract - According to this provision jurisdiction to grant such a relief is discretionary and Court is not bound to grant such a relief merely because it is lawful to do so - A note of caution is added to effect that discretion shall not be exercised an arbitrary manner but on sound and reasonable manner guided by judicial principles - Other provisions and explanations incorporated in it provide an ample guidance in this regard - One of known principles is that grant of relief of specific performance must not result in an unfair and undue advantage to plaintiff - Grant of relief in favour of respondents was totally inequitable - On other hand it is urged on behalf of respondents that mere inadequacy of consideration is not at all a ground to deny relief - Reliance is placed upon certain judgments on this point - It is also contended that no hardship as such was proved and therefore decree of trial Court cannot be interfered with - Appeal Allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Defendants in O.S. No. 1138 of 1991 on the file of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, preferred this appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17-9-2001 passed by the trial Court.
2. The 1st respondent is the husband of the 2nd respondent. They filed the suit against the appellants for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 20-3-1989, marked as Ex. A-1. Respondents pleaded that in the month of June, 1988, the appellants offered to sell the suit schedule property, bearing Municipal Nos. 1-2-65, 1-2-65/1 and 1-2-65/2, admeasuring about 300 Sq. yards, situated at Domalguda, Hyderabad, for a consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is said to have been paid on the date of agreement, and a sum of Rs. 96,000/- on several dates, prior to that. It was alleged that the agreement was entered through their Special Power of Attorney. They pleaded that though they made several requests to the appellants, for execution of the registered sale deed, they did not come forward, and left with no alternative, they filed the suit for specific performance. It was stated that they are ready and willing to pay the balance consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs. The 1st appellant is the father, and appellants 2 to 7 are his children. All of them have filed a common written-statement. At a later point of time, the written statement was amended, by including certain paragraphs. The gist of the defence is that they never agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the respondents, nor they received a sum of Rs. 96,000/-, as pleaded. It was urged that the 6th appellant, by name P. Satyam, was a minor, and that Ex. A-1 is invalid in law. They pleaded that the 1st appellant used to have money transactions with one Sri K. Laxmaiah, who is the brother-in-law of the 1st respondent, and a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was borrowed from the said Laxmaiah, with a promise to repay the same after two years, and taking advantage of the need of the 1st appellant, Laxmaiah, got Ex. A-1 executed, with an object to secure repayment of Rs. 1 lakh, after 2 years, with interest at 48% per annum. Rs. 96,000/-, mentioned in Ex. A-1, is stated to be the interest portion. Appellants pleaded that the suit agreement was nominal and executed for the purpose of repayment of the amount. They denied any privity of contract with the respondents. It was also alleged that the respondents neither issued any notice, nor requested for execution of sale deed, because they were very much aware of the nominal nature of the document.
3. The trial Court held that the execution of the agreement of sale is proved. It rejected the plea of the appellants and decreed the suit as prayed for.
4. Sri V. Parabrahma Sastry, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that Ex. A-1 is not enforceable in law, since the 6th appellant was a minor, as on the date of agreement. According to him, it is contrary to the provisions of Contract Act and Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). He submits that the agreement was nominal in nature, and executed with an object of securing repayment of Rs. 1 lakh with interest, and it was never intended to be for sale of the property. By referring to the various documents filed in the suit, he submits that, even by the year 1983, the value of the property was more than Rs. 3 lakhs, and it is quite unnatural that it is agreed to be sold 6 years thereafter, at ?rd of that price, when, in fact, the prices in the area have increased manifold.
5. Learned Counsel further submits that the terms of Ex. A-1 are vague, and that it does not provide for proportionment to the respective owners, and, or for the consequences of non-compliance with the conditions. He draws the attention of this Court to the clause, under which, the possession of the property was agreed to be delivered, two years after the agreement, particularly in the context that the alleged leftover consideration was only
