SHARADAMMA Vs. GUNASHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant challenging the judgment and decree, dated 3. 4. 2007 passed by the learned 11th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O. S. 1051 of 2003.

(2.) THE brief facts giving raise to the present appeal are as follows: the respondent/plaintiff herein had filed a suit for specific performance of the contract against the appellant/defendant herein in respect of the suit schedule property. It is the contention of the plaintiff that, he entered into an agreement of sale with the appellant/respondent, which came to be reduced into writing on 23. 3. 2002, for the sale of the suit schedule property, for a consideration of a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- According to the plaintiff, he paid an advance of rs. 2,50,000/- at the time of execution of the agreement of sale itself and a time limit of eleven months was fixed for the execution of the sale deed and the balance amount was to be paid on the day of registration. According to the plaintiff, as the appellant/defendant herein did not take any steps for the completion of the contract, on 9. 11. 2002, he was constrained to issue a notice and said notice was returned unserved. According to the plaintiff himself, 3 days prior to the issuance of the notice, the defendant herself had sent a notice on 6. 11. 2002, denying the agreement of sale to which the plaintiff had issued a suitable reply praying for early execution of the sale deed or in the alternative for refund of the advance consideration along with interest as agreed to. The allegation of the plaintiff is that, inspite of such notice, as the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed, he is constrained to file the present suit for specific performance.

(3.) AFTER service of the notice, the defendant/appellant appeared in the trial Court and filed her written statement inter alia disputing the very fact of the alleged agreement of sale. According to the defendant, there was absolutely no agreement between herself and the plaintiff, for the sale of the property in question. Infact, it is contended that, the plaintiff was an unlicensed money lender and as the defendant was in need of Rs. 2,50,000/-, when she approached the plaintiff, he agreed to give the loan, but defendant has to furnish the security. As such, by way of security, the defendant executed the nominal agreement of sale, which was agreed to be not acted upon. According to the defendant, the property was worth more than Rs. 6 lakhs and as she was in dire need of money, she had agreed for execution of the agreement of sale, which was never intended to be acted upon. It is also contended that, as per the terms of the agreement, in fact the appellant was paying interest on the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- borrowed by her, every month at the rate of 7,500/- and when the defendant insisted upon the receipt for the said interest paid, the plaintiff not only refused to give receipts but also threatened of filing of the suit for specific performance on the basis of the agreement of sale dated 23. 3. 2002 though initially it was agreed not to be executed. As the defendant smelt ill motives on the part of the plaintiff, even before the expiry of the time, on 6. 11. 2002 she issued a notice bringing it to the notice of the plaintiff the true nature of the agreement, dated 23. 3. 2002. In this regard, it is also submitted that, when the plaintiff tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the defendant, she had to file a police complaint on 2. 11. 2002. It is contended that, in-spite of the knowledge of all these facts, the plaintiff had filed the present false and vexatious suit, only to harass and intimidate the defendant/ appellant, especially after the rise in the value of the properties. On these among other grounds, it is contended that, the suit is liable to be dismissed.