MAHAVEER HEMANTH BHANDHARI Vs. P. SRINIVASALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Defendants 2 and 3 in a Suit for Specific Performance of an Agreement of Sale, dtd. 19/12/2006 are the Appellants in the present Second Appeal.

(2.) The parties are described as per their litigative status before the Trial Court. The case of the Plaintiff is that on 19/12/2006, he entered into an unregistered Sale Agreement with the Defendants 1 to 3. The Sale consideration mutually fixed was Rs.4,00,000.00 and on the date of the execution of the Sale Agreement, a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 was paid as Advance. According to the Plaintiff, the Sale Agreement permitted the Plaintiff to take possession of the property, fence the same and also form a Layout for marketing the plots. The parties have agreed for 90 days period for concluding the Sale transaction. According to the Plaintiff, he was also ready and willing to pay the balance Sale consideration and get the Sale Deed executed in his favour. However, the First Defendant was evading the Plaintiff by citing some reason or the other and in the mean time, the Plaintiff came to know that the First Defendant was carrying out some development activity in the property and on enquiry, the Plaintiff came to know that the First Defendant had dropped the very proposal viz., the sale of the Suit property to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's attempts to contact the First Defendant were unsuccessful and therefore, he lodged a Police Complaint in C.S.R. No.51 of 2007. The Plaintiff also issued a Lawyer's Notice on 10/4/2007, to which the First Defendant sent a reply on 19/4/2007 informing the Plaintiff that he had already sold the Suit property to Defendants 2 & 3. According to the Plaintiff, the Sale Deed in favour of the Defendants 2 & 3 was a sham and nominal document and also reflecting a lesser Sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000.00 than what was agreed under the Agreement of Sale with the Plaintiff viz., Rs.4,00,000..00 According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants 2 & 3 were not bona fide Purchasers for value. The Plaintiff, therefore, instituted the Suit seeking Specific Performance.

(3.) The First Defendant filed a Written Statement admitting the Execution of the Agreement of Sale for Rs.4,00,000..00 However, the First Defendant denied the Plaintiff's claim that the Plaintiff was put in possession of the Suit property in part performance and that he was allowed to plot out the same. Though the First Defendant would contend that the Sale Agreement did contain a Covenant that the Plaintiff was permitted to enter the property for the purpose of forming the road, laying fence, etc., the said Covenant was not given effect to. According to the First Defendant, though 90 days' time was fixed, the Plaintiff was never ready and willing to complete the transaction as promised. The First Defendant also admitted to have sold the Suit property in favour of Defendants 2 & 3 and denied the allegations that the said Sale Deed was a sham and nominal document.