M C NAGALAKSHMI Vs. M A FAROOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendants questioning the judgment and decree dated 19th July 2000 in O. S. No. 6041/1992 on the file of the XI Addl. City civil Judge, Bangalore City.

(2.) RESPONDENTS are the plaintiffs. Suit is one for enforcement of an agreement of sale in respect of residential building consisting of ground, first and second floor, bearing No. 18/1 (old) New No. 11, II Main Road, vasantha Nagar, Bangalore-560 052.

(3.) PLAINTIFFS' case is that, they entered into an agreement of sale, with the defendants on 13/9/1989 inter alia to purchase the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 6,66,250. 00 and on 13/9/1989, the plaintiffs paid an advance of Rs. 50,000. 00. As a part performance of the contract, defendants delivered vacant possession of eastern portion of second floor of the schedule property to the plaintiffs. Further, sum of Rs. 4 lakhs was to be paid as an additional advance subject to the condition stipulated under the agreement, as the defendant No. 9 was mentally retarded and was not capable of acting on her own, her mother-first defendant herein being a natural guardian agreed to obtain a certificate from competent authority before payment of the said sum of Rs. 4 lakhs. It was agreed that the 9th defendant's share to be deposited in a nationalised Bank for her maintenance throughout her life. Defendants notwithstanding clause 13 of the agreement prevailed upon the plaintiffs to pay additional advance amount of Rs. 4 lakhs as they were in dire need of money. Accordingly, on 7th October 1989, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 was paid in the hands of first defendant. The defendants in turn delivered vacant possession of the ground floor to the plaintiffs on same day and also handed over the deeds in respect of schedule property. Defendants further sought for payment of Rs. 75,000. 00 as against agreed further advance amount of Rs. 4 lakhs. Defendants had agreed not to call upon the plaintiffs to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000. 00 until they produced the valid certificate from competent authority in respect of defendant No. 9. Under the agreement, two years' time was stipulated for completion of the said deed. However, as an after, thought, defendants started placing several obstacles in the way of plaintiffs to get the sale deed executed in their favour, such as one Smt. Padmavathi Rao, who was mortgagee in possession, refused to receive the amount of Rs. 48,000. 00 towards the redemption of the said mortgage. On the other hand, defendants themselves got redeemed the mortgage and occupied that portion of the building and they continued to remain in occupation. Secondly, the defendants forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs from the eastern portion of the second floor. Further, notwithstanding earlier attornment of tenancy in favour of the plaintiffs, two tenants viz. P. G. Unnikrishnan and Smt. Lakshmi chandrashekara Shetty, who were paying the rents to the plaintiffs, stopped paying the rents.