SILVIAN NORONHA Vs. B.R. BANU JAYARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in OS No. 8720 of 2006 dated 25 -9 -2014. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant in the suit.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their status before the trial court.

(3.) THE defendant contested the suit. She admitted the execution of the agreement of sale. According to her, she agreed to sell the suit schedule property for her legal necessity and that she received a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakh as advance sale consideration on the date of execution of the agreement, out of which Rs. 1.00 lakh was paid by way of cheque and the remaining amount in cash. The plaintiff had agreed to pay Rs. 3,750/ - per month as rent to the defendant, but he has failed to pay the same. She also admitted receipt of a further sum of Rs. 2.00 lakh towards the total sale consideration, for which she has issued receipts. According to the defendant, she has received a total advance sale consideration of Rs. 7.00 lakh and not Rs. 10.00 lakh, as claimed by the plaintiff. She denied the execution of the receipts for the remaining sum of Rs. 3.00 lakh, as contended by the plaintiff. She also contended that receipts dated 13 -12 -2002, 1 -10 -2003 and 30 -10 -2003 are all concocted and fabricated documents and that she has not received any amount under those receipts. It was also the case of the defendant that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, since he had no capacity to make the payment. It is the specific case of the defendant that on 13 -8 -2006, she had got issued a legal notice calling upon the plaintiff to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit schedule property by terminating the tenancy and suppressing the issue of legal notice dated 13 -8 -2006 by the defendant, the plaintiff filed the present suit. Therefore, she requested the court to dismiss the suit, since the plaintiff has not made out any case for grant of discretionary relief of specific performance. According to the defendant, for her immediate legal necessity she had agreed to sell the suit schedule property, as she being a widow having a son and a daughter. The plaintiff did not make the payment within a reasonable time and therefore he is not entitled for the relief sought for.