SONNAPPA IYER Vs. K R RAMUTHAIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. THE defendants have filed a memorandum of cross-objections. THE suit is one for specific performance of an agreement for sale. THE case of the plaintiff is as follows: On 9. 3. 1977, the first defendant, who is the owner of the property entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for sale of the suit property for a total consideration of Rs. l,10,000 and received an advance of rs. 25,000. It was agreed that the sale should be completed within a period of one year. Ultimately, a term was introduced by agreement that before the month of That in the next year, possession will be handed over and the sale deed will be executed. THE defendant was in need of money in order to perform his sons marriages. He was also in debts and as a manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his sons, he had to meet the needs of the family. THEre was legal necessity for selling the property and that was the reason for the defendant agreeing to sell the same. Though the property was the self-acquired property of the first defendant, he agreed to get the signatures of his sons in the said deed. When the plaintiff called upon the defendant to execute the sale deed in January 1978, the first defendant wrote a letter containing false allegations and concocted a new story that he intended to execute only a mortgage and there was an agreement only for that purpose. THE case of the defendant is false and the plaintiff having parted with a sum of Rs. 25,000 was entitled to get a sale deed from the defendant on payment of balance. THE plaintiff is prepared to deposit the balance into court.

(2.) THE first defendant filed a written statement contesting the genuineness of the agreement. According to the first defendant, he was in need of money for having an operation for cataract in his eye and he approached the plaintiff therefor. He wanted a loan of Rs. 40,000 and agreed to execute a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff over the suit property. For the purpose of preparing an agreement to execute a mortgage, he signed certain papers at the places shown by the plaintiff and at that time he could not see due to cataract, he signed as directed by the plaintiff, without seeing what exactly the papers on which he had signed. He received a sum of Rs. 15,000 only from the plaintiff and got himself admitted in the General Hospital at Madras. After his discharge he got a letter from the plaintiff and when he wrote to the plaintiff to prepare the mortgage deed, the plaintiff came forward with a case that there was an agreement for sale. THE agreement for sale is a fabricated one and the plaintiff is not entitled to have a decree for specific performance. THE properly is joint family property and there was no legal necessity and it is not binding on the sons of the defendant.

(3.) WE take up for consideration the question as to whether Ex. A-2 is genuine and there was an agreement for sale as contended by the plaintiff. Several circumstances have been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents which create a grave suspicion as to the genuineness of the agreement. Ex. A-2 comprises of six stamp papers, five of them being for 50 paise each and one 25 paise. The fifty paise stamp papers have been purchased from one R. K. Nagaraja Rao, stamp vendor, Karur. The name of the person who purchased the stamps has not been mentioned in the stamp paper. WE, however, find the name of one Subramanian in rubber stamp at the top of each stamp paper. It is not clear whether it is the name of the purchaser or name of somebody else. It is quite likely that Subramanian was the purchaser and instead of writing his name in ink, his rubber stamp was utilised and his name was engrossed on the stamp paper with the aid of the rubber stamp. The sixth stamp paper is purchased from one P. Kumar, stamp vendor in Dhar-mapuri and the name of the purchaser is one Rajendran of Dharmapuri. That was purchased on 7. 2. 1977, while all the other stamp papers were purchased on 2. 3. 1977. There is no explanation in the evidence as to why the stamp papers were purchased in karur and Dharmapuri on some earlier dates. The evidence of P. W. 2 who is admittedly a broker and who according to P. W. I bought the stamp papers and got the document typed, is to the effect that he purchased the stamp papers on 9. 3. 1977, the date which the document bears. According to him, he was sent for by the first defendant to his house on 9. 3. 1977 at 9 a. m. and when he went there he saw P. W. 1 and the first defendant sitting together. He was told that the first defendant agreed for selling the house to the plaintiff and they wanted an agreement to be prepared. Exs. A-24 and A-25 were handed over to him and he was asked to prepare a draft of the document. He went to his house, prepared a draft and brought it back after getting it typed. There is no explanation in his evidence as to how the stamp papers were purchased such earlier and in different places other than Salem, where the parties were living. P. W. I has been cross-examined. on these aspects of the matter in extenso. According to his evidence, there were talks about a week prior to ex. A-2 and they were concluded on that day. Nobody was present at the time of the talks, on 9. 3. 1977 stamp papers were purchased by P. W. 2 and they were purchased in the office of the Sub Registrar at Shewapattai, Salem. According to him, they were purchased at about 12 noon on that date and he did not know who typed the document. Thus, his evidence also does not explain as to how the stamp papers were purchased in Karur and Dharmapuri long prior to the date of ex. A-2.