Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1957
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH
P.N. DESAI, J.
Smt. Noorjahan D/o. Ameensab Hadimani - Appellant
Versus
Abdul Ravoof s/o. Mehabubsab Nagarbawadi - Respondent
Regular First Appeal No.200013 of 2016
Decided On : 16-10-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri G.G.Chagashetti & Sri. I.R.Biradar, Advs
For the Respondent:Sri Manvendra Reddy, Advocate.
Headnote:
Specific Relief Act - Section 20 - Sale deed - Contract of sale - Whether plaintiff proves that defendants executed agreement of sale agreeing to sell suit property for valid consideration received earnest amount Whether plaintiff proves that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract - Whether defendants prove that they have executed document for security loan - Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of specific performance of contract as sought for - Whether plaintiff is entitled for alternative relief of refund of earnest money with interest - What order or Decree – Held, Counsel for appellants argued that plaintiff failed to prove agreement of sale - Scribe of said document is not examined - Defendants are illiterate and said agreement of sale was not read-over to them - Simply they were made to sign said document as per say of their father without knowing nature of document - Plaintiff has not taken any steps till death father of defendants - He kept quite nearly for more than months from date of alleged Agreement of Sale - evidence one of attesting witness to said agreement clearly indicates that it is loan transaction - Trial Court has not considered his evidence - Admission made by in his cross examination is not properly appreciated - Counsel further argued that relief of specific performance of contract being discretionary relief and when there is evidence that plaintiff was never willing to perform essential terms of contract then Trial Court ought not have decreed suit - Senior counsel for respondent argued that Agreement of Sale is registered one - If defendants denied same burden of proof is on defendants to prove that said document is only security for loan obtained by their father - There are no material to show that value of land was per acre at time of sale agreement as contended by defendants - No sale statistics of said year were produced - Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal filed by the defendants lays challenge to the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, at Basavan Bagewadi in O.S.No.380/2011 dated 22.01.2016 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of contract of sale.
2. The parties will be referred as the plaintiff and the defendants as per their ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief contentions of the parties are as follows:-
The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking relief of specific performance of contract of sale in respect of agricultural land directing the defendants to execute the sale deed after receiving balance consideration of Rs.12,78,000/-. Alternatively, sought for refund of the earnest money along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.
4. It is the contention of the plaintiff that defendants are full sisters and absolute owners of suit land bearing R.S.No.912, measuring 23 acres, 18 guntas, situated at Ukkali village. It is contended that in the year 2010, the defendants brought the land for sale to meet their legal necessity. After negotiation, the defendants agreed to sell the land for a total consideration of Rs.14,78,000/-. It was further agreed that out of the total sale consideration, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-shall be paid as an earnest money and the remaining sum shall be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. Accordingly, in the presence of witnesses the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-to the defendants. In this regard, the terms of agreement were reduced into writing and a deed of agreement was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bagewadi.
5. It is further contended that the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the defendants went on postponing the execution of the sale deed on one or other false pretext. Though the plaintiff has requested them many times, the defendants postponed execution of the sale deed. Then the plaintiff got issued a notice on 16.08.2011 calling upon them to execute the sale deed, but the defendants gave false and evasive reply. Then the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking the above said relief.
6. Defendants Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statements. They contended that the said land was owned by their father by name Ameensab. The said Ameensab was not having any male issues. The defendants are only daughters to him. The husbands of the defendants are not having land property or house property. So, looking into their poor financial conditions, the father i.e., Ameensab got mutated their names to the suit land. Then they came to Ukkali village alongwith their husband and started cultivating the suit land and it is only source of income to the family of the defendants. It is further contended that they are illiterate persons and do not know sale and purchase transaction. They are solely depending upon the suit land for their livelihood. It is further contended that the defendants do not know the plaintiff and any talks with them. They never intend to sell the said property to any body, much less, to the plaintiff.
7. It is their defense that in the month of September 2010, the father of the defendants called them stating that he has taken a loan from the plaintiff and the plaintiff is demanding a document from him. He told both the defendants to execute a document as demanded by the plaintiff as a security for the said loan borrowed by him. Accordingly, they have signed the papers as a security for the loan taken by their father.
They were taken by their father and the husband of defendant No.1 along with the plaintiff to Sub-Registrar Office. They were asked to sit in the corner of the Sub-Registrar Office then their photos were taken and signature were taken. They do not know the nature and contents of the documents.
8. It is contended by the defendants that for the first instance they came to know about the sale transaction to the effect that it is an agreement of sale. In fact, it was cont
