JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated November 24, 1973 made by the Prl. Civil Judge, mysore decreeing OS No. 30 of 1970 for specific performance of a contract. The facts are shortly as follows :-

( 2 ) MR. Venugopal was the owner of a house bearing Mun. No, 1869, situated at an important locality in Mysore City. He was residing there along with his wife ranganayakamma alias Rangamani. They were defendants in the suit instituted by govinda Narayan for specific performance of an agreement Ext. P-1 dated November 17, 1969. The case of the plaintiff was that both the defendants agreed inter alia to sell that house in his favour for Rs. 21,000 within three months therefrom. They received Rs. 3,000 as advance and the balance of Rs. 18,000 was agreed to be payable at the time of registration of the sale deed. The period of three months set out in the agreement for execution of the sale deed expired on February 17, 1970. The defendants, however, did not execute the sale deed. The plaintiff vainly waiting all the time with readiness to perform his part of the agreement, called upon the defendants to perform their part thereof. The defendants instead of executing the sale deed, took up untrue and untenable contentions. So, the plaintiff was compelled to institute the suit for specific performance. He has also claimed compensation at Rs. 250 per month for loss of rent from the date of breach of the agreement till the defendants deliver possession of the house in question.

( 3 ) AFTER the institution of the suit and before filing a written statement, A. R. Venugopal defendant No. 1 died leaving behind his wife defendant No 2 alone to contest the suit. The suit was instituted on March 4, 1970. He died on April 28, 1970. On July 3, 1970, defendant No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") filed a written statement contending inter alia: that she signed the Ext. P 1 without knowing its contents. She was given to understand that it was a mortgage deed not an agreement for sale. She did not know to read and write Kannada in which language Ext. P-1 was written. Her husband at the time of the execution of ext, P-1 was too sick and be too did not know to read and write Kannada. He had executed a will on October 15, 1969 just about a month prior to Ext. P-1, bequeathing the suit property to the defendant. His intention in other words was that the property should go to the defendant after his death. They had no other property except the suit house and they never intended to sell it. The suit property was the sole means of her livelihood providing both residence and income by way of rent ; and ler husband had no intention of depriving her ot" that source of livelihood. Ext. P 1 was brought about under inequitable ciicumstances and its performance would lead to hardship and the decree for specific performance should not, therefore, be granted.

( 4 ) IN the light of these pleadings, the court below framed the following among other issues:- (1) Whether the agreement of sale dated 17-11 1969 was vitiated by fraudulent misrepresentation ? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement ?

( 5 ) BEFORE recording the evidence, the court below by consent of parties appointed a Commissioner to value the suit property who in his report stated that the market value of the property was not more than that for which it was agreed to be sold under Ext. P-1.

( 6 ) THE plaintiff has given evidence as pw 3 He has also examined two more witnesses, P. N. Venugopal (PW 1) and muniappa (PW 2 ). The defendant in turn has examined herself as DW 7 and six more witnesses. B. K. R. Naidu (DW 1) and K. R. Yetiraja lyenger (DW 4) have testified that the 1st defendant was undergoing treatment in the hospital. K. T, Jagannatha Rao (DW2) was a Railway official who once occupied a portion of the suit house as a tenant ; and P. Ramanathan (DW 3) is the present tenant paying a monthly ren

Click Here to Read the rest of this document