M.A. AMANULLAH AND ANOTHER Vs. VENKATESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs in the suit, are the appellants herein. They have filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 12-12-1994, under which, according to the plaintiffs, the defendant agreed to sell the suit property for a total consideration of Rs. 27,75,000.00 and received an advance of Rs. 25,000.00. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the period for completion of the transaction was agreed to be six months. It is the complaint of the plaintiffs that the defendant did not take any steps to apply the appropriate Authority under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, in spite of his having been called upon to do so and their notice to the defendant returned unserved. They issued a paper publication and then filed the suit. The plaintiffs have stated in the suit that the original title deed relating to the suit property was handed over to them by the defendant on the date of agreement.

(2.) Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs have applied in O. A. No. 627 of 1995 for injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property till the disposal of the suit. They have also filed O. A. No. 650 of 1995 for an injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the building, which forms part of the suit property or putting up any construction on the suit Property till the disposal of the suit.

(3.) The defendant entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. In that affidavit, it is stated that the agreement filed into Court by the plaintiffs is not a genuine one. He has referred to the corrections made in the original agreement, at page 3 thereof. He has also averred that the signatures purporting to attest the corrections were not his. According to him, he is an old man of 78 years and did not have the help of his family members at the time when the plaintiffs took his signatures in some papers. It is his contention that the transaction was more or less forced on him. He refers to a police complaint having been given by him against the plaintiffs activities and seeking protection. He has also made a complaint to the appropriate Authority under the Income-tax Act that the plaintiffs have got the document from him purporting to be an agreement and requesting the Authority to summon the plaintiffs to appear before him and place all the papers to comply with the provisions of Chapter 20-C of the Income-tax Act. It is his case that no copy of the agreement was given to him. The defendant has further alleged that he decided to develop the property and entered into an agreement with a promoter, who had taken possession of the suit property and applied for demolition of the building. The promoter has also demolished the building on the suit property even prior to the filing of the suit.