A V MOHAMMADALI Vs. MATHEW LAWRENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the sole defendant in the suit O.S.No.190 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kochi. He has challenged the decree passed against him in that suit directing him to execute a sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) The suit is instituted for granting a decree for specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement allegedly executed by the plaintiff and the defendant for sale of the plaint schedule property by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The case of the respondent /plaintiff in the suit can be briefly stated as follows: On the basis of the agreement dated 11.9.2006, the defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. At the time of the agreement with the plaintiff, the defendant had only agreed to purchase the plaint schedule property from its then owners. After the agreement with the plaintiff, the defendant purchased the property in his name. The plaintiff paid Rs.50, 000/- as advance towards sale consideration at the time of execution of the agreement between him and the defendant. The total sale consideration fixed as per the agreement was Rs.1, 60, 00, 000/-. Subsequently, the plaintiff periodically paid amounts to the defendant towards sale consideration. He thus paid a total amount of Rs.55, 00, 000/- to the defendant extending the period of agreement from time to time. The period of the agreement was extended upto 31.3.2010 by the defendant by making endorsements on the agreement. But, the defendant never got ready to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff then sent a lawyer notice to the defendant demanding execution of a sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property after receiving the balance consideration. The defendant did not send any reply to the lawyer notice. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the money required for the transaction was always ready with him. The plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 11.09.2006.

(3.) The defendant filed a written statement in the suit raising the following contentions. The plaint schedule property was purchased by the defendant as per the assignment deed dated 16.9.2006. The plaintiff had purchased three motor vehicles from the defendant and he owed substantial amount to the defendant in that transaction. When the defendant entered into an agreement for purchasing the plaint schedule property from its owners, the plaintiff, who is a real estate broker, expressed his desire to purchase the property on the condition that the defendant shall evict the tenants from the building in the property. The plaintiff assured the defendant that he would pay the full sale consideration within six months from the date of execution of the agreement for sale. The defendant agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for a consideration of 1.60 crores rupees. He purchased the requisite stamp paper on 21.4.2006 and entrusted it with the plaintiff for engrossing the agreement for sale. Accordingly, the plaintiff brought an agreement for sale and obtained the signature of the defendant in it. The plaintiff paid Rs.5, 00, 000/- as advance towards sale consideration. The defendant is illiterate in English. He had got the agreement read over to him and translated by the plaintiff before he put his signature in it. Subsequently, the plaintiff informed the defendant that he incurred heavy loss in the real estate business and that he would not be able to purchase the property by paying the balance sale consideration and that he had no objection to the defendant selling the property to any other person. The defendant had already agreed to purchase another property utilising the consideration expected to be paid by the plaintiff. Therefore, he pressed the plaintiff for completing the sale transaction and to save him from incurring heavy loss. He insisted that the plaintiff should settle all accounts and pay him the amount of Rs.30, 00, 000/- due to him in the transaction relating to the sale of motor vehicles and then he would agree for recission of the contract. Accordingly, the plaintiff issued four cheques for Rs.7, 50, 000/- each to the defendant. The defendant then handed over the original agreement for sale to the plaintiff on 10.7.2006. The defendant presented the cheques in the bank. Two cheques issued by the plaintiff were encashed but the other two cheques issued by him were dishonoured. The plaintiff then requested the defendant to wait for payment of the amount of Rs.15, 00, 000/- (the amount covered by the two dishonoured cheques) till his financial condition improved. In the month of February, 2010 the plaintiff told the defendant that he was ready to purchase the property by paying the balance sale consideration of one crore and fifty five lakhs rupees. The defendant was then not ready to sell the property. A wordy altercation took place between them. Thereafter, the plaintiff fabricated an agreement using another stamp paper and forged endorsements on the back page of the stamp paper to the effect that he paid the defendant Rs.30, 00, 000/- on 11.9.2006 and Rs.20, 00, 000/- on 12.12.2006 and he forged the signature of the defendant below such endorsements. The defendant has not received any amount from the plaintiff on the aforesaid dates. The plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief in the suit on the basis of the forged document.