M. NAGARAJ Vs. ANJANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' appeal. The present respondent as a plaintiff had instituted a suit against the present appellants, arraigning them as defendants in O.S.No.10/2016, in the Court of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Kolar, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "Trial Court"), seeking specific performance of the registered agreement for sale dtd. 3/12/2014.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court was that, he had entered into an agreement for sale dtd. 3/12/2014 for the purchase of the suit schedule immovable property which is a house property bearing Municipal Khatha No.425 and measuring 36 ft. x 27 ft. situated at Gandhinagar, Kolar Town, Karnataka, for a total sale consideration of a sum of Rs.15,00,000.00. As an advance amount, sale consideration of a sum of Rs.14,00,000.00 was paid by him to the defendants. It was agreed between the parties that the balance sale consideration of a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 was to be given to the defendants i.e. the vendors, at the time of registration of the Sale Deed which Sale Deed was required to be executed within one year time from the date of the agreement and the said agreement was registered with the jurisdictional Office of the Sub Registrar on the date 4/12/2014. According to the plaintiff, on the date of the agreement, the defendants handed him over the original Sale Deed dtd. 21/3/2002, under which, the defendants had acquired the suit schedule property from their vendors. It is further the contention of the plaintiff that, though he was ready and willing to perform his part of the promise, however, the defendants did not execute the Sale Deed and were evading to perform their part of the contract. Hence, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dtd. 17/11/2015, calling upon the defendants to execute the Sale Deed by receiving the balance sale consideration. Though the legal notice was served upon the defendants on the date 19/11/2015, however, the defendants neither replied to the legal notice nor performed their part of the contract, which constrained the plaintiff to file the Original suit in the Trial Court.

(3.) In response to the summons served upon them, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their common Written Statement, wherein they denied the plaint averments but pleaded that the market value of the suit property in the year 2014 was more than Rs.50,00,000.00 and that the defendants would be put to irreparable loss and hardship if they were to sell their only house property. They also contended that they have two daughters and to provide them the education and to discharge a loan which was obtained for the purpose of the marriage of one of their daughters they had approached the plaintiff and requested for a loan of a sum of Rs.10,00,000.00. The plaintiff, who is a money lender agreed to lend the money requested for by the defendants, however, he obtained from them an agreement for sale, acknowledging the receipt of a sum of Rs.14,00,000.00, when in fact, only a sum of Rs.10,00,000.00 was paid to them, that too, as a loan. The remaining sum of Rs.4,00,000.00 was added by the plaintiff stating that the same would be the interest for the loan amount for a period of two years. Thus, the defendants were made to execute the document showing the receipt of a sum of Rs.14,00,000.00. They further stated that the plaintiff had agreed to return the said document to the defendants when they repay the loan amount in the month of December 2016. With this, the defendants categorically stated that, at no point of time, they had agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. They further contended that on receipt of the legal notice, they informed the plaintiff that they had not executed such an agreement for sale, for which, the plaintiff assured them that he would return them the agreement when the defendants repay the loan amount on or before October 2016. With this, the defendants contended that, they are ready to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000.00 which they had taken from the plaintiff, together with interest thereupon. They also denied plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform their part of the promise under the agreement. With this, they prayed for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff.