Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
T. S. DOABIA
SHRIPAT RAO - Appellant
Versus
RAGHUVIRSINGH - Respondents
Second Appeal 181 Of 1985
Decided On : 07/04/1994
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - AGREEMENT TO SELL - EXECUTION - DENIAL BY DEFENDANT - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - FINDING OF FACT - INTERFERENCE BY APPELLATE COURT - LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs claimed specific performance of an agreement to sell, alleging that they had executed sale deeds in favor of the defendant on the condition that he would reconvey the land to them upon repayment of the loan amount with interest within 5 years. The defendant denied executing the agreement to sell and claimed that the sale deeds were outright sales.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the agreement to sell was duly executed by both parties and that the defendant had failed to execute the reconveyance deed despite the plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. The lower appellate court reversed the trial court's findings and held that the agreement to sell was not executed by the defendant.
Issues: 1. Whether the agreement to sell was duly executed by the defendant. 2. Whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. 3. Whether the defendant's failure to execute the reconveyance deed amounted to a breach of contract.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court's findings on the execution of the agreement to sell were based on proper appreciation of evidence and should not have been interfered with by the lower appellate court. 2. The court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded and proved their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 3. The court held that the defendant's failure to execute the reconveyance deed constituted a breach of contract and that the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court were set aside, and the plaintiffs were granted specific performance of the agreement to sell.
( 1 ) THE plaintiffs were successful in the trial court but were unable to convince the lower appellate court. The verdict having gone against them they have preferred this second appeal.
( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiffs is that they were in need of money. They accordingly proposed to the defendant to advance some amount by way of loan. It is stated that the defendant agreed to advance a loan on the condition that a proper security should be furnished. The condition laid down was that the plaintiffs should execute a sale deed in favour of the defendant. It was also agreed that in the event of repayment of the loan amount with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum the defendant would reconvey the land to the plaintiffs. The outer limit for reconveyance was fixed as 5 years. It is stated that on above arrangement having been agreed upon the plaintiffs sold their land vide two agreements executed on 27/06/1962 in favour of the defendant. The land which was subject-matter of the two registered sale deeds is located in survey No. 1386 and 1387 and is as under: survey No. Area 261 0. 16 259 6. 00 360 4. 03 370 8. 16 372 6. 07 374 2. 07 344/1115 0. 11 355/1116 1. 01 ________________ total No. 8 30. 01 ________________ sale made by plaintiff No. 2 :- 286 1. 01 293 3. 10 297 1. 02 304 1. 02 301 1. 03 310 0. 07 311 4. 02 313 3. 10 317 1. 05 318 3. 06 319 3. 12 336 2. 18 368 1. 19 371 1. 17 _________________ total No. 14 30. 04 ________________
( 3 ) THE two sale transactions were for a consideration of Rs. 800/- each.
( 4 ) IT was further pleaded by the plaintiffs that on 27/06/1962 the defendant entered into an agreement to reconvey the land and the plaintiffs were to pay the interest at the rate of 8 annas per hundred per month. As stated above, the outer limit in the matter of reconveyance was fixed at 5 years.
( 5 ) IT is further pleaded that in the month of June, 1967 the plaintiffs approached the defendant with the total amount along with interest and requested him to reconvey the property. The defendant however, informed them that he would talk on the subject after 15 / 20 days as he was going out of station. It is stated in para No. 7 of the plaint that on 17/06/1967 the plaintiffs reached the house of the defendant but the defendant put them off on the plea that he would consider the matter. It may be seen that there is some dispute with regard to averments contained in para No. 7. According to the defendant the plaintiff wanted to pay some amount whereas the plaintifffs case is that they wanted to pay the total amount. I have perused the original plaint and find that the word written in Hindi is "kul RUPAYA MAI BAY". The defendant wants to read this as "khuch RUPAYA". As noticed above the original of the plaint used the word 'kul' and 'khuch'. This aspect of the matter would be dealt with again at the appropriate place.
( 6 ) IT may further be seen that the case of the plaintiffs is as the defendant was not having a clear intention therefore, telegrams, registered letters and dasti letters were sent to him from 20/06/1967 to 2 3/06/1967. It is further stated that inspite of this the plaintiffs did not exhibit any intention to execute the deed in question.
( 7 ) IT is categorically stated in para No. 9 of the plaint that on 23/06/1967 the plaintiffs went to the house of defendant and tendered the entire amount and requested him to execute the sale deed but the defendant flatly refused in this regard. Registered notices were sent on 24/06/1967. Notices were also sent under postal certificate and also by pasting at the house of the defendant. The plaintiffs further states that they attended the office of the Sub-Registrar on 27th of June, 1967 along with the sale consideration but the defendant did not turn up to execute the deed in question. They accordingly filed a suit for specific performance of the contract on 21/10/1967.
( 8 ) THE stand of the defendant is that he never executed any deed of reconveyanc
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
