HARISH Vs. RAMANATHSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal is filed assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 14.08.2014 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, in O.S. No.365/2012 refusing to grant specific performance of an agreement to sell leasehold rights of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the suit property.

(2.) In this Judgment, the parties would be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The appellant herein was the plaintiff while the respondents herein were the defendants in the suit.

(3.) The plaintiff filed O.S. No.365/2012 seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 31.01.2011 executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 5 by which they offered to sell their leasehold rights in the suit property. The plaintiff contended that the defendant Nos.1 to 5 possessed perpetual leasehold rights of the suit property and that they offered to sell the leasehold rights. The plaintiff came to know of such offer and thus approached the defendants 1 to 5 and negotiated to purchase the remainder term of leasehold rights for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,69,00,000/-. Accordingly, the defendant Nos.1 to 5 entered into an agreement of sale dated 31.01.2011 by which day, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- as earnest money to the defendant Nos.1 to 5 and balance consideration of Rs.1,09,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration. He contended that the defendant Nos.1 to 5 were required to demarcate the property and intimate the plaintiff and thereafter execute the sale deed. It is also stated that a civil suit bearing O.S. No.235/2010 was pending consideration in respect of the suit property wherein an order of injunction was passed restraining the parties from alienating or creating any charge over the property in question. The plaintiff claimed that an eviction case in RCA No.38/2004 was pending consideration and as such it was agreed that after conclusion of the said cases, the sale deed would be executed. It is alleged that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and was ready with the balance sale consideration and was awaiting the defendant Nos.1 to 5 to complete their part of the contract. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant Nos.1 to 5 dilly dallied the issue and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Further, the plaintiff came to know through the local real estate agents on 26.10.2012 that the defendant Nos.1 to 5 were attempting at foul play and had executed a sale deed conveying the leasehold rights in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 10. The plaintiff claimed that he verified from the office of the Sub-Registrar and came to know that the defendant Nos.1 to 5 had conveyed the leasehold rights in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 10 at a throwaway price of Rs.45,51,000/- and that they had mentioned in the sale deed that a sum of Rs.51,000/- was paid as consideration and the balance Rs.45,00,000/- was to be paid through post dated cheques. The plaintiff stated that the sale deed executed in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 10 dated 25/26.10.2012 was all fraudulent and in collusion with the defendant Nos.6 to 10 so as to deprive the right of the plaintiff. With this, the plaintiff sought for specific performance of the agreement of sale and also to set aside the sale deed dated 25.10.2012 registered on 26.10.2012 and also sought for an alternate relief for refund of the money of Rs.60,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.