LAWS(KER)-2020-2-67

V.JANAKI Vs. K.NARAYANI

Decided On February 11, 2020
V.Janaki Appellant
V/S
K.Narayani Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in a suit for recovery of money are the appellants. The suit though dismissed by the trial court, the decree was reversed in appeal.

(2.) The claim for money is under the head "return of advance sale consideration". According to the plaintiff, Ext.A1 agreement dated 01.01.2015 was executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell 2.43 acres of property belonging to the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for a total consideration of RS.35 lakhs. An amount of RS.10 lakhs was paid towards advance sale consideration. The payment of advance, apart from being acknowledged in Ext.A1 agreement, Ext.A2 receipt dated 01.01.2015 has also been executed in plaintiff's favour. The period fixed for performance was two months. On expiry of the period, on the intervention of the mediators Ext.A3 agreement was executed on 17.03.2015 whereby, the defendants agreed to return the advance amount of RS.10 lakhs with interest within a period of six months. It was further provided in Ext.A3 that in case of default in payment of the said amount, the property will be conveyed to the plaintiff for an amount of RS.22 lakhs and the amount of RS.10 lakhs paid will be adjusted towards the consideration. The agreement was not honoured to by the defendants. The third defendant had not signed Ext.A1. Stating that to be the reason, the plaintiff, on 17.03.2015 instead of seeking a decree for specific performance, filed the suit for return of the advance sale consideration.

(3.) The defendants denied Exts.A1 to A3 and the alleged transaction in its entirety. According to the defendant, the plaintiff's son was married to the daughter of one Kaini Gopalan who is a money lender; the first defendant borrowed an amount of RS.2 lakhs from him and as demanded by him, signed blank papers of defendants 1 and 2 were entrusted to him. Though the amount was repaid, the signed papers were not returned. The same have been misutilised to create Exts.A1 to A3 and the suit is filed, contends the defendants.