SUSHEELA Vs. SRI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the defendants have acquired the suit schedule property from the Government by grant certificate dtd. 24/5/1995 and the defendants are enjoying the suit schedule property as absolute owners with possession. Subsequently, during 1997, both the defendants approached the plaintiff with the publicizing their intention to sell the suit schedule property for family needs, to clear the hand loan and to maintain two minor children. The plaintiff accepted the proposal of the defendants to purchase the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.25,000.00. Accordingly, the defendants have executed the agreement of sale dtd. 12/11/1997 and received the entire sale consideration of Rs.25,000.00 from the plaintiff. As the suit schedule property is a granted land, there is a time restriction that the suit schedule property should not be sold for a period of 15 years from the date of grant. Hence, the defendants have agreed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after completion of restricted period of 15 years that means after 24/5/2010. After the restricted period of 15 years, the plaintiff approached the defendants to execute the registered sale deed but the defendants did not come forward to perform their part of contract. Hence, the plaintiff had issued legal notice and the defendants replied to the said notice denying entire contentions of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit is filed for the relief of specific performance. The plaintiff also claimed the damages at the rate of 18% per annum. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that the document which was executed is only for as a security for the loan since the plaintiff demanded to mortgage the said property and there is no any sale transaction.

(3.) In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, she herself examined as PW1 and also examined one witness as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P10. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 but no documents are marked on behalf of the defendants. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered Issues No.1 to 3 as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved that the defendants have executed the agreement of sale on 12/11/1997 receiving entire sale consideration of Rs.25,000.00 and she is every ready and willing to perform her part of contract and answered Issue No.4 as negative in coming to the conclusion that defendants have failed to prove that they availed loan of Rs.25,000.00 from the plaintiff and put their signatures on the blank stamp papers and ordered the defendants to repay the advance amount of Rs.25,000.00 with interest of 18% per annum from the date of agreement till filing of the suit and 14% interest from the date of filing of the suit till the decree and 6% interest from the date of decree till realization of the decreetal amount and declined to grant the relief of specific performance. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court having reassessed the material on record confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal is filed by the plaintiff before this Court.