Agreements involving mentally ill individuals require legal authority for performance; validity of payment must be substantiated despite minor discrepancies.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. The parties will be referred to as per their rank in the trial Court for the purpose of convenience.

2. The appeal is by the defendants in O.S.No.49 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Court, Puducherry, aggrieved by the decree for specific performance granted in favour of the plaintiff in the said suit.

3. The plaintiff' sued for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 12.01.2007, in and by which, according to the plaintiff, the defendants agreed to convey the suit property which is a residential house for a total consideration of Rs.40,00,000/-. The said agreement is registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Puducherry. According to the plaintiff, as per the agreement, the defendants agreed to execute a sale deed upon receipt of the balance consideration within a period of eleven (11) months from the date of the agreement. A sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid as advance on the date of agreement.

4. The 2^nd defendant in the suit is a mentally ill person and the 1^st defendant was shown as guardian. Reliance was placed on an order passed by the Principal District Judge, Puducherry in M.I.P.O.P.No.32 of 2002 dated 17.03.2003, appointing the 1^st defendant as the guardian of the person of the 2^nd defendant.

5. The plaintiff also averred that a further sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid on 09.03.2007 and an endorsement was made by the 1^st defendant on the reverse of the agreement. Subsequent thereto, there were at least four extensions of the time fixed under the agreement on various dates. All the extensions were evidenced by endorsements made by the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant, in the presence of witnesses. The plaintiff issued a notice seeking specific performance on 07.09.2009, to which the 1^st defendant sent a reply on 23.09.2009 disputing the validity of the agreement. Hence, the suit came to be filed on 26.11.2013.

6. The defendants resisted the suit contending that though the agreement was entered into, it was not intended to be an agreement of sale. It was the claim of the 1^st defendant that the 1^st defendant and the plaintiff were doing real estate business, since the business faced a financial crunch, the plaintiff suggested that they could borrow on the strength of the security of the immovable property of the 1^st defendant and therefore in order to felicitate such borrowing, the agreement was entered into. It was claimed that neither the advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as evidenced by agreement nor the further payment of Rs.15,00,000/- alleged to have been made on 09.03.2007 as evidenced by the endorsement were paid to the defendants. The sum and substance of the written statement was that though an agreement was entered into, it was not intended to be acted upon and no money was received under the agreement.

7. On the above pleadings the learned trial Judge framed the following issues:-

1. Whether it is true that sale agreement executed between the parties on 12.01.2007?

2. Whether the defendants had received advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- on two occasions i.e., on 12.01.2007 and 09.03.2007 ?

3. Whether the defendants are directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a judgment and decree as prayed for?

5. To what relief the parties are entitled to?

8. At trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and one M