HANUMANTHAPPA AND ORS. Vs. MEGHARAJ AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed by defendant No. 4 and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 against the judgment and decree dated 2nd August, 2014 made in R.A. Nos. 126/2012 and 127/2012 respectively on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubli dismissing the appeals and thereby confirming the common judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 30th October, 2012 made in O.S. No. 564/2008 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Hubli decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance of contract and directing defendants to execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs in respect of suit property and also declared that the sale deed dated 7.5.2008 executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant No. 4 in respect of suit property was a sham and bogus document and consequently, declared as a null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

(2.) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, who are plaintiffs before the trial Court had filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants contending that the agricultural land bearing R.S. No. 14/1A measuring 3 acres on the eastern portion out of 4 acres and 12 guntas situated at Nagashettikoppa village of Hubli Taluk with specific boundaries is the suit property. That defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of deceased Mahadevappa Mane, who was the absolute owner of suit property and they had acquired the right and title to the said property by succession and have become the absolute owners of the said land. That defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have no house property and therefore, defendant No. 1 decided to dispose off some portion of the land with an intention to purchase a plot and to build a house thereon for herself and for her minor children. Hence, she expressed her intention of selling the said property to the people of Nagashettikoppa village for which the plaintiffs approached her and expressed their intention to purchase the same. Accordingly, defendant No. 1 executed an agreement of sale on 24.11.2006 in favour of the plaintiffs for herself and on behalf of her children for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh per acre i.e., for a total consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs and received a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - as earnest money. As per the sale agreement, defendant No. 1 had to take permission from the competent Court of Law for alienation of suit property on behalf of minors defendant Nos. 2 and 3, for which she filed G & W No. 11/2007 before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hubli and the same came to be allowed on 20.7.2007. The said fact was not brought to the notice of the plaintiffs. In the meanwhile, defendant No. 1 received the entire consideration from the plaintiffs in installments from time to time. Later defendant No. 1 insisted the plaintiffs for payment of excess amount. Accordingly, the plaintiffs also paid excess amount to defendant No. 1. Totally defendant No. 1 received Rs. 4,20,000/ - from the plaintiffs. In spite of receipt of the same, defendant No. 1 postponed the execution of the sale deed stating that she had not obtained the orders from the Court and after a lapse of 4 to 5 months the plaintiffs enquired the matter in the court, etc., and therefore, they filed a suit.

(3.) The defendants appeared through their Counsel. Defendant No. 1 filed her written statement on her behalf and on behalf of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Defendant No. 4 filed a separate statement. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 denied all the plaint averments contending that the husband of defendant No. 1 expired about 4 years prior to the alleged agreement; that defendant No. 1 is a poor and illiterate lady and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are minors; that defendant No. 1 is not having any near relatives at Hubli and that she had intended to settle in her parents place along with her children and to have a small residence there; that the suit land is the only ancestral family property; that since the plaintiffs have approached and expressed their willingness to purchase the suit land and after negotiation, defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell the suit land for Rs. 2 lakhs per acre and for a total consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs for which plaintiffs had paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 in cash and Rs. 10,000/ - through cheque as earnest money and had agreed to take the sale deed as early as possible by paying the remaining amount. It was further contended that the plaintiffs took the L.T.M. of defendant No. 1 without explaining the contents on the alleged agreement which was typed in English and some portion of the agreement was blank; that at the request of defendant No. 1, the plaintiffs had paid Rs. 1 lakh on 12.1.2007, Rs. 1 lakh on 25.6.2007 and Rs. 2 lakhs on 26.7.2007 and that defendant No. 1 had obtained permission from the Court on 20.7.2007 and that defendant No. 1 had obtained permission from the Court on 20.7.2007 and approached the plaintiffs and insisted for payment of balance amount but the plaintiffs had postponed the payment and lastly the plaintiffs have got issued a notice dated 13.3.2007 by making false allegations, etc. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the suit with costs.