RAMAKRISHNA NAIDU Vs. PALANIAPPA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of Ganapatia Pillai, j. in S. A. No. 15 of 1957. That appeal was tiled against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, in A. S. No. 127 of 1955 preferred against the decree of the District Munsif, Tirukoilur in O. S. No. 282 of 1952. The prior facts necessary for a consideration of this Letters Patent Appeal are briefly the following:

(2.) THE suit property is 5 acres and 35 cents of dry land in a village near chidamoaram in South Arcot district. The defendant, Palaniappa Chettiar is a nattukottai Chettiar who was at one time doing money-lending business in chidambaram. His native place is Valayapathi near Pudukottai. The suit property belonged to one Narayanaswami Nadar, who had borrowed money from the defendant. The defendant obtained a decree, attached the suit property, brought it to sale in court auction, and purchased it on 14-4-1941. The sale was confirmed on 28-6-1941, and the defendant obtained possession through court on 17-31941. Some years later, the defendant wound up his business at Chidambaram, and went away to live in his native place Valayapathi. The plaintiff met the defendant at Valayapathi, and entered into an agreement of purchase with him Of the Suit property for a consideration of Rs. 1500 out of which Rs. 300 was paid immediately in cash as advance, and the balance was agreed to be paid within one month. It is common ground that when the plaintiff tendered the balance of consideration, the defendant refused to accept it, and refused to execute the sale deed. When the plaintiff sent a notice on 11-6-1951, the defendant sent a reply notice refusing to sell the property. He alleged various grounds, but out of them, the most significant was the claim that at the time of the agreement, the defendant was not aware of the fact that a scheme of irrigation by the digging of a channel had been in progress for the irrigation of the concerned property which had become thereby very valuable, and that the plaintiff was aware of the scheme, but had taken advantage of this knowledge in obtaining the agreement, and therefore the bargain was neither fair nor equitable nor just nor conscionable. It may also be pointed out that shortly after this, Narayanaswami Nadar the original owner of the property filed a petition in the executing court under Order XXI, Rule 90, C. P. C. for setting aside the court sale alleging that the money decree had been discharged in some other manner, the defendant appeared in person, and agreed to the setting aside af the decree. It was found that these proceedings were collusive and therefore not binding on the plaintiff. Nothing turns now upon this aspect of the case, be cause the disposal of the case has proceeded on the ground that the defendant owned the property, and the question that arose for consideration was whether in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff was entitled to obtain specific performance of the agreement to sell.

(3.) THE learned District Munsif of Tirukoilur who tried the suit found, that there was nothing in the circumstances of the case which gave the plaintiff an unfair advantage in regard to the bargain, and decreed the suit for specific performance. The learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore, in appeal, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had suppressed the material fact about the irrigation facilities, above mentioned, of which the defendant was not aware and that though this might not amount to fraud, still it would not justify the court in granting specific performance, in the alternative, the lower appellate court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages which were fixed at Rs. 1500, besides the return of the advance of Rs. 300. Therefore, in lieu of the trial court's decree, the first appellate court granted to the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 1800. It was against this decision, that the plaintiff filed the second appeal before Ganapatia Pillai, J. mere was also a memorandum of cross-objections filed by the defendant. The plaintiff reiterated his claim that specific performance should be decreed. Ganapatia Pillai, J. upheld the first appellate court's view, and held that Section 22 (1) of the Specific Relief Act would apply to this case, where the plaintiff had suppressed material information concerning the property, of which the defendant was not aware, which had the result of making the bargain between the parties unequal. The second appeal was dismissed and the memorandum of cross-objections which related to the award of damages was also dismissed.