PUSHPARANI SHANMUGHASUNDARAM Vs. PAULINE MANONMANI JAMES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit by the plaintiffs-appellants for a specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property to the extent indicated in the plaint in favour of the plaintiffs has failed in the trial court. The agreement dated 10.8.1980, contemplated inter alia that the defendant had agreed to sell to the first-plaintiff about 38 grounds of land mentioned in ?A? schedule to the plaint to develop the area into a housing colony to enable persons with fixed incomes to construct houses thereon consistent with the policy of the Government to encourage construction of small and medium sized houses. The purchaser-first plaintiff had agreed to purchase the property from the defendant at a consolidated price to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 8,500/- per ground in so far as the bare land was concerned and also additional price for the superstructure thereon. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant made certain applications to the authorities for exemption from the operation of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act (Act 24 of 1978) and that the first plaintiff was informed by the defendant on or about 20.3.1981 that defendant's application for exemption from the operation of the abovesaid Act was rejected. The first plaintiff then took such actions to see that suitable orders under the Act were passed by the competent authority in accordance with the terms of the agreement dated 10.8.1980. The defendant, in the meanwhile took a further advance of Rs. 5,000/- on 2.3.1982 and thereafter informed the first plaintiff that sometime earlier in. April, 1982, she had received a copy of the notice under S. (4) of the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978, dated 31.3.1982 permitting the defendant to retain the properties comprised in schedule B to the plaint. The first plaintiff then requested the defendant to appoint a competent engineer or architect to value the superstructure. The defendant at that stage replied that the same may wait till she filed an appeal against the order of the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. In the meanwhile, however, the first plaintiff nominated the second and the third-plaintiffs to purchase portions of the property that could be sold by the defendant in pursuance of the agreement dated 10.8.1980. The plaintiffs stated in the plaint that the first plaintiff had all along been ready and willing to perform her obligation under the agreement and, in fact, had discharged her part in relation to the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, and that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to discharge all obligations under the terms of the agreement, that they had paid almost the entire value of 3894 sq. m. of land, which the defendant had been permitted to retain by the competent authority at Rs. 1,48,427/- on the basis of Rs. 8,500/- per ground, the price agreed upon under the agreement. The plaintiffs also estimated the value of the superstructure at Rs. 50,000/- and stated that they were prepared to pay these amounts unconditionally, less a sum of Rs. 10,000/- received by the defendant or such other sum as the Court fixed.

(2.) THE defendant resisted the suit saying that she was the sole owner of the property mentioned in Schedules A to D to the plaint, measuring about 40 grounds, that she knew that since the passing of Act 24 of 1978 the property was subject to a ceiling and satisfactory solution was necessary. She entrusted the matter to one Rangaswamy, an advocate, who introduced another person A.K. Shanmugha Sundaram, the husband of the first plaintiff. Shanmugha Sundaram represented to the defendant that he, being a politician, was having considerable influence in the corridors of power and stated that he intended to buy the entire property of the defendant to develop the area into a housing colony to enable persons with fixed incomes to construct houses thereon consistent with the policy of the Government to encourage constructions of small and medium sized houses. Both Mr. Rangaswamy and Mr. Shanmugha Sundaram convinced the defendant about the political power and influence of the latter and that he would be able to get exemption for the defendant's 40 grounds under S. 21 of the Act and told her that without such an exemption she had to part with a major portion for a nominal sum and that she, therefore, accepted their advice and entered into the agreement, referred to in the plaint. She stated, however, that she wanted to retain for herself her existing residence and 2 1/2 grounds around it, but they persuaded her to accept a plot of 2 grounds in the proposed lay-out and 1200 sq. ft. plinth. Her case in the Trial Court was that the document was taken in the name of the wife of the advocate Shanmugha Sundaram, but she was only a name-lender and was totally ignorant of the ramifications of the suit transaction. As regards the additional payment of money, the defendant's case was that she was sent for in March, 1982, by her advocate Mr. Rangaswamy, who asked her to come alone, she was told by him that although exemption was refused, Mr. Shanmugha Sundaram, the advocate husband of the first-plaintiff, was still at it. THEy asked her to receive a sum of Rs. 5,000/- again and stated that Mr. Shanmugha Sundaram would procure exemption. Under these circumstances, she received the said sum of Rs. 5,000/-.

(3.) A learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Suraj Singh v. Sohan Lal AIR 1981 Allahabad 330, has stated the law on the subject in these words: