SUDHA Vs. SHARADAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated March 27, 1984 made by the II Addl. Civil Judge, Belgaum, in O.S.No. 115 of 1981.

(2.) Smt. Sudha, the appellant was plaintiff. She instituted the suit for specific performance of a contract for sale in regard to eastern half portion of Plot No. 8 (CTS No. 3940) situate on Belgaum Club Road, requiring respondents (defendants 1 and 2) to execute the sale deed in her favour by accepting the balance of sale consideration. Alternatively she prayed for a decree for a sum of Rs. 45,000/- by way of damages in the event of the Court for any reason declining to grant the relief of specific performance.

(3.) The contract sought to be enforced was founded by correspondence between the parties and the material allegations in the plaint are: Plot No. 8 measuring 14 guntas was originally owned by Dr. P.M. Bhoj who died leaving behind his widow defendant-1 and two children, of them one is a daughter married to an affluent family. She is, therefore, not interested in the property and has released her rights thereto in favour of defendant-1 and brother defendant-2. In the Municipal records, however, the property stood in the name of Siddaraj who is the brother-in-law of Dr. Bhoj. Siddaraj is a practising Advocate at Bangalore. After the death of Dr. Bhoj, defendants-1 and 2 left Belgaum to settle down at Bangalore. Siddaraj was looking after his widowed sister and her property. He was trying to dispose of the said plot and in that regard he was corresponding with his friend C.V. Kittur, a Chartered Accountant at Belgaum. Plaintiff's husband Sudhakar Shanbhag who was also a close friend of Kittur wanted to purchase the plot in the name of his wife and conveyed his willingness to Siddaraj through Kittur. Considerable correspondences were made between Siddaraj, Kittur and Shanbhag from June 1976 to February 1977. The case of plaintiff was that Siddaraj offered to sell the entire plot for Rs. 80,000/- in two equal bits and Shanbhag unreservedly accepted that offer. The property was offered for sale in equal moieties to avoid any problem under the Karnataka Urban Land Ceiling Act. On February 5, 1977, plaintiff, in furtherance of her acceptance of the offer, sent two cheques of Rs. 2,500/- each as advance money. But Siddaraj informed Shanbhag that he was dropping the idea of sale till the khata in respect of the property was changed in the names of defendants 1 and 2. So he informed Shanbhag that he would not be encashing the cheques and would return the same. The cheques were eventually scored off by Siddaraj despite the request from Shanbhag to encash the same in the name of defendant-