PRAKASH KUMAR R Vs. R. CHITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs' appeal. The present appellants had instituted a suit against the present respondent arraigning her as a defendant in the Court of the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore City (CCH No.18) (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "Trial Court") in O.S.No.2099/2009 for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,53,205/- together with interest thereupon at Rs.24% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiffs in the Trial Court was that, they had entered into an Agreement for purchase of the suit schedule immovable property from the defendant who was the owner of the said property thereof, on 25-11-2007 for a total consideration of a sum of Rs.41,50,000/-. Under the said Agreement, an advance amount of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid to the defendant through a cheque. Time stipulated under the Agreement for completion of the promise was three months, within which period, the defendant ought to have established her marketable and disposable title in respect of the suit schedule property and executed the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiffs after obtaining the balance sale consideration. Ever since the date of the Agreement, the plaintiffs were ready and willing to have the Sale Deed executed in their favour. They approached their Bankers for financial assistance in the form of a Housing loan to purchase the suit schedule property. However, after scrutiny of the documents pertaining to the property, the Bankers expressed their inability to sanction the loan alleging defect in the title of the suit schedule property. The same was brought to the notice of the defendant by the plaintiffs and requested the defendant to cancel the said Agreement of Sale or to establish her absolute title over the suit schedule property to enable the plaintiffs to purchase the same. However, the defendant expressed her inability to prove her title. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought for refund of the entire advance amount of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the defendant. Even though the defendant had suppressed her defective title in respect of the suit schedule property, still, she did not refund the advance amount to the plaintiffs, despite issuance of legal notice to her by the plaintiffs, which constrained the plaintiffs to institute a suit against the defendant.

(3.) In response to the service of summons, the defendant appeared through her counsel and filed her Written Statement in the Trial Court, wherein she admitted of she having received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiffs under an Agreement for Sale dated 25-11-2007 entered into by her with the plaintiffs with respect to the sale of suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. However, she denied that there was any defect in the title of the property.