M C KENDALL Vs. S CHANDRASEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 13-8-1981 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore in O.S. No. 61/1980.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under: Plaintiff filed a suit at O.S. No. 61/1980 before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District praying for a decree for specific performance of the agreement said to have been taken place between him and defendant-1 on 21-1-1980 in respect of Sy. Nos. 23, 24, 26 and 27/3 of Gottigere Village, Bangalore District. In short the case of the plaintiff is as under : An agreement of sale of the aforesaid Sy. Nos. was entered into on 21-1-1980 between the plaintiff and defendant-1. The sale price was fixed at Rs. 1,46,000/-. It was agreed that on the said date that plaintiff should pay Rs. 39,000/- to defendant-1 and defendant-1 should deliver possession of the aforesaid lands to the plaintiff on 23-1-1980. It was also agreed that the sale deed should be executed within 60 days from 21-1-1980. The formal agreement in that behalf was required to be executed on 23-1-1980 and an amount of Rs. 1,001/- was also paid by plaintiff to defendant-1 at the time of agreement, that is to say, on 21-1-1980. Defendant-1 however, did not hand over the possession of the property on 23-1- 1980. Efforts made by the plaintiff to hand over the amount of Rs. 39,000/- and to take possession of the properties from defendant-1 did not fructify since defendant-1 by then had changed his mind. Plaintiff, therefore, sent a letter dated 24-1-1980 to defendant-1 by registered A.D. with a copy thereof to defendant-2. A cheque for Rs. 39,0007- was also sent to defendant-1 along with the said letter. However, defendant-1 refused to receive the envelope containing the letter and the cheque, with the result, the same came back to the plaintiff. The subsequent notices issued on behalf of the plaintiff also did not have the desired result. Under these circumstances, plaintiff filed the suit praying for a decree for specific performance as also for other reliefs referred to in the plaint.

(3.) Defendant-1 in his written statement took the stand that there was no concluded contract between him and plaintiff. He contended that plaintiff prevailed upon defendant-1 to sign a document (Ex. P. 1) stating that it was subject to finalisation by the execution of a formal agreement duly stamped after all terms were settled. According to him, the consideration mentioned in Ex. P. 1 was not an agreed one. He also took the contention that in any event he was not in a position to put the plaintiff in possession of the properties since defendant-3 who is his mother had an undivided half share in the same. Defendant-1 denied all other allegations made in the plaint contrary to the stand taken by him. He prayed for dismissal of the suit.