M VENKATESH Vs. KISHORE JATARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four first appeals arise from the common judgment and decree dated 31-1-1989 passed by Sri R. S. Futane, xviii additional city civil judge, Bangalore, decreeing the plaintiffs claim for the sum of money with interest at 6% p. A. Claimed by the plaintiff-respondent in each case respectively i. e. , in o. s. No. 2339 of 1983, o. s. No. 2340 of 1983, o. s. No. 2348 of 1983 and o. s. No. 2349 of 1983. In other words, the trial court decreed the suit No. 2339 of 1983 for a sum of Rs. 30,900/- with interest at the rate of 6% p. a. , decreed suit No. 2340 of 1983 for a sum of Rs. 38,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% p. a. , decreed suit No. 2348 of 1983 for a sum of Rs. 30,9007- with interest at the rate of 6% p. a. and decreed suit No. 2349 of 1983 for a sum of Rs. 30,900/- with interest at the rate of 6% p. a.

(2.) THE facts of the case are almost common. According to the plaintiffs' case, in all the four cases, the defendant-appellant entered into an agreement of sale on 29-7-1980. In case No. 2339 of 1983, he agreed to sell site nos. 12 and 17 formed out of the land in sy. No. 68/4, h. s. l. No. : 323, nagasettihalli, ii stage, rajmahal vilas, for a sale consideration of Rs. 55,860/- and received a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as advance. In case No. 2340 of 1983, the defendant-appellant vide agreement dated 29-7-1980 agreed to transfer site nos. 23 and 24 formed in the same land i. e. , 6874 as mentioned above for a sale consideration of Rs. 63,3157- and the defendant-appellant received a sum of Rs. 25,0007- as advance. In o. s. No. 2348 of 1983 under the agreement of sale of the same date, the defendant agreed to sell and the plaintiff agreed to purchase site nos. 10 and 11 out of the aforesaid land i. e. , sy. No. 68/4 for a sale consideration of Rs. 55,860/- and the plaintiff-respondent paid and the defendant-appellant received a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as advance. With reference to o. s. No. 2349 of 1983 under the agreement of sale dated 29-7-1980, the defendant agreed to sell site nos. 18 and 19 formed out of sy. No. 68/4 for a sale consideration of Rs. 55,860/- and the defendant-appellant received a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as advance from the plaintiff-respondent. Under the agreement, there were certain terms and conditions which have to be fulfilled by the defendant-appellant. The plaintiffs' case as pleaded in all these cases is that, subsequently plaintiff came to know that the defendant has no title to transfer these properties as well as he had not secured the requisite permission from the b. d. a. nor has he obtained provision for water supply etc. The plaintiff issued notice to the defendant-appellant that in view of the defect in the vendors title and absence of needful sanction from the b. d. a. and provision for water and sewerage which has not been obtained by the defendant-appellant, plaintiffs-respondents cancelled these agreements on account of breach of conditions committed by the defendant-appellant. The plaintiffs as such, in all these matters gave the notice to the defendant-appellant demanding refund of the amount which the plaintiffs had advanced to the defendant-appellant as has been mentioned above. The defendant did not comply with the notices, instead he gave the reply to the notices and denied the very fact of having entered into agreements dated 20-7-1980. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed these four suits for recovery of the amount that has been advanced under the four agreements which was the subject-matter of those four suits. Plaintiff claimed refund of the amount advanced with interest at the rate of 18% p. a. on the notices/ summons being served, the defendant-appellant filed the written statement taking some pleas. ,i have gone through the written statements. The only contention that has been stated is that the defendant has complied with the terms and conditions and that one nandalal ram- das was instrumental in instigating the plaintiffs-respondents to file the suit. At one stage, a plea was also taken that he was authorised by the respective owners to enter into transaction. He mentioned that all the amount of advance have been paid to the respective owners of the property and that they had executed the sale-deeds respectively. The defence was taken that plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain the suits and claim for refund of the amount of advance with reference to each agreement.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the material issues in the four suits which read as under : issues in o. s. No. 2339 of 1983