DASARATHARAMAN Vs. CHANDRASEKARA SANKARAIYA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant, He filed suit O.S. No. 2409/81 before the District Munsifs Court, Cuddalore, for recovery of Rs. 8,608/-with interest and costs alleging as follows: THEre was an agreement entered into between the appellant and the respondent under Ex. A-2 on 19.1.1976 as per the terms of, which the appellant agreed to buy the property belonging to the respondents for a sum of Rs. 25,725/- and paid an advance of Rs. 6000/-On the same date, under Ex. A-1 a sale deed was also prepared. THE appellant was to pay Rs. 7.500/- in discharge of a mortgage over the property and the balance of Rs. 12,225/- was to be paid at the time of registration before the Sub Registrar. At the time the agreement was entered into the first respondent represented that there was some problem with regard to the ownership of the property and that he would get it solved and as security, the first respondent had included the "B" schedule property in the sale deed. At that time, one Thirunavukkarasu was in enjoyment of the property and the appellant had to pay Rs. 1000/- to the said Thirunavukkarasu. He also had to spend Rs. 400/- for measuring the property. THEse amounts had also to be deducted from the total sale consideration. THE appellant also took possession of the property and raised groundnut. THEre was also an agreement between the appellant and the first respondent on the same day for irrigating the lands from the first respondent's motor and pump-set. As undertaken by him, the first respondent did not clear the defect in the ownership. THE first respondent caused a notice Ex. B-1 dated 11.5.1976 to be issued to the appellant to complete the sale. THE appellant asked the first respondent to clear the defect. But the first respondent represented that it would take time to do that and wanted the possession back and also Rs. 500/- as lease. After harvesting the groundnut the appellant handed back possession to the first respondent. THE first respondent took proceedings regarding the title and ownership of the property. However, he did not inform the appellant about the result of the proceedings. Though the appellant was ready and willing to complete the sale by having the sale deed registered because of the conduct of the respondents, it could not be done. THE suit had therefore to be filed.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the respondents as follows: Only after scrutinizing the title deeds, Ex. A-2 agreement was entered into. It was true that a sum of Rs. 6,000/- was received as advance on that day. THE appellant promised to complete the sale within a period of two months therefrom. He also wrote to the respondents under Ex. B-2 dated 28.5.1976 and Ex. B-3 dated 7.6.1976 that he would attend registration, but he did not turn up. THE first respondent never told the appellant at any time that there was any defect in the title and that he would get it solved. THE alleged payment of Rs. 1000/- to Thirunavukkarasu and the payment of Rs. 400/-for measuring the property were false. THEre was no reply issued by the appellant to Ex. B-1 notice. As the appellant could not make up the balance of consideration, the registration could not be completed. THEre was no payment of Rs. 500/- as lease to the first respondent as alleged. THE appellant had benefited in a sum of Rs. 5000/- by raising groundnuts in the property. He was never ready and willing to complete the registration. If on account of the appellant's default, the sale was not completed, the appellant had to lease the amount of Rs. 6000/-

(3.) INDEED, there is no evidence as to the actual damage caused to the respondents. At the same time, it cannot be disputed that the appellant had the benefit of possession. He raked groundnut and harvested it. Except for the decision of the Supreme Court in Fateh Chand v. Balakrishna Dass (AIR 1963 S.C. 1405), in no other case relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant, possession was parted with by the vendor in favour of the purchaser. The extent in the instant case is 3.43 acres. As per the agreement between the parties Ex. A-2, in case of default, the respondents were entitled to take possession with the crops. As per the plaint, the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 500/- to the first respondent as lease though this was not accepted. He could have made at least four or five times that amount during the time he was in possession of the property. This would come to about Rs. 2500/- and because of the default on the part of the appellant, the] respondents were put to loss. The total consideration fixed under the agreement was Rs. 25,725/-. In my view, a sum of Rs. 2500/- could be fixed as compensation to the respondents. I have already adverted to the fact that the respondents were entitled to take possession of the property with the crops on default by the appellant. There is no evidence to show that at the time the appellant handed back possession to the respondents, there were standing crops and that they had any particular value. So, we can safely assume that the property was handed back to the respondents without any crops.