Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Mohan Shantanagoudar and K. Govindarajulu, JJ.
B. Shivaram Rai —Appellant
Vs.
N.C. Palani Swamy —Respondent
R.F.A. No. 912 of 2006 (SP)
Decided on : 24-08-2011
specific performance - sale agreement - agreements Ex. P1 and P2 - [specific performance] - [Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 73; Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 10] - The court discussed the agreements Ex. P1 and P2, and the intention of the parties. It highlighted the legal provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 73, and the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 10, and how they influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of sale agreements Ex. P1 and P2, claiming that the defendant agreed to sell a property to him. The defendant denied the agreements and claimed that they were for securing a loan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the agreements Ex. P1 and P2 were executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff, but they were intended for securing a loan, not for executing a sale deed.
Issues: The issues included the execution of the agreements, justification of the decree for specific performance, and the intention of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the agreements were intended for securing a loan, not for executing a sale deed, based on the evidence and conduct of the parties.
Final Decision: The plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance but was entitled to a refund of the amount paid, and the defendant was directed to pay Rs.4,90,000 with interest at 10% per annum.
MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.—This appeal is filed by the original defendant in O.S. No. 4/2000 against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madikeri.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Court below.
3. The suit property is a vacant land measuring 25 cents in Sy. No. 127 (renumbered as 127/14) identified as house site No. 2 of Uluguli Village, Somawar Pet Taluk, Kodagu District. The defendant is the owner of the suit property.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant entered into sale agreement as per Ex. P1 on 14.7.1998 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. An amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid earlier to execution of Ex. P1 and the balance of Rs.1,50,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of sale agreement. The period stipulated for completion of the process of executing the sale deed was one year from the date of agreement. On 15.7.1998, the defendant converted the land for non-agricultural purposes. Thereafter the defendant started delaying the process of execution of the sale deed. In the meanwhile, defendant offered to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at 18% p.a., from 14.7.1998 and in default thereof to comply with the agreement dated 14.7.1998. Accordingly, the defendant executed another agreement as per Ex. P2 dated 13.10.1999 mentioning therein that he has received entire sale price of the suit schedule property and due to various reasons he could not sell the suit property and would return the sale amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. amounting to Rs.90,000/-, i.e., in all Rs.4,90,000/-. Accordingly, a cheque bearing No. 0854875, dated 15.11.1999 drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, Sunticoppa for Rs.4,90,000/- was drawn by the defendant and was handed over to the plaintiff with the condition that if the cheque is not honoured in the bank, the agreement dated 14.7.1998 would revive, empowering the plaintiff to have the suit schedule property sold in his favour as per the agreement dated 14.7.1998; the cheque was presented to the bank by the plaintiff, which came to be returned, due to insufficient funds. Thereafter the plaintiff issued notice on 29.11.1999 calling upon the defendant to comply with the agreement Ex. P11 immediately. Defendant sent his reply as per Ex. P12 on 14.11.1999, denying the sale agreement and the cheque. Hence, the suit came to be filed for specific performance of the agreements, dated 14.7.1998 and 13.10.1999.
5. The suit is opposed by the defendant by filing the written statement. The defendant has denied all the contentions raised in the plaint, including the execution of Exs. P1 and P2, and cheque, etc. The case of the defendant is of total denial. In addition, he has stated that the suit property is a joint family property and his daughter is having equal right in the suit schedule property. According to the defendant, he is having coffee estate and there was no occasion for him to alienate the suit property.
6. Based on the aforementioned pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Court below:
1. Does the plaintiff prove that the defendant has executed an agreement of sale dated 14.7.1993 to sell the plaint schedule property for a consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-?
2. Does the plaintiff further prove that the defendant has executed a further agreement dated 13.10.1999?
3. Does the plaintiff further prove that he is willing to perform his part of the contract?
4. Does the defendant prove that the alleged agreements are forged and fraudulent and there is no contract as alleged?
5. Does the defendant prove that he has not issued any cheque to the plaintiff for Rs.4,90,000/- including cheque No. 0854375, dated 15.11.1999, drawn on Karnataka Bank., Sunticoppa Branch?
6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary party to the suit?
7. Whether the suit
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
