PUTTA RAMAKRISHNAIAN CHETTY Vs. SATHENAPALLE SUBRAHMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No. 80/1958 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor is the appellant in this appeal. He filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 2-1-1956 executed by the 1st defendant in his favour. On the death of one Lakshmamma the 1st defendant inherited certain lands and two houses in Nadimpalle and lands in Peddakurrapalle villages. He wanted to sell the properties and approached the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the properties for a sum of Rs. 7,500/- and paid an advance of Rs. 1,000/- on 2-1-1956. The plaintiff agreed to pay the balance of consideration and the 1st defendant agreed to execute the deed of sale on or before 31-3-1956. Though the plaintiff got the amount of Rs. 6,000/- ready the 1st defendant did not execute the deed of sale. On 30-3-1956 the plaintiff issued a registered notice through his lawyer to which the 1st defendant gave a false reply stating that the agreement executed in favour of the plaintiff was nominal and never intended to be acted upon. It was mentioned in the reply notice that Appasarma, the 2nd defendant had obtained a lease deed and an agreement to sell from the 1st defendant and that the plaintiff and his friends later approached the 1st defendant and represented to him that Appasarma had deceived him. They stated that they would see that the agreement with Appasarma was cancelled and arranged to sell the properties for large amounts. They asked the 1st defendant to execute an agreement in favour of the plaintiff. Later, on 2-1-1956 they took the 1st defendant to the plaintiff's house and cajoled and entreated the 1st defendant to execute an agreement in favour of the plaintiff assuring him that the agreement was nominal and not entitled to be acted upon. They exercised undue influence over the plaintiff. The alleged payment of advance of Rs. 1,000/- was also denied. This reply notice was sent on 4-4-1956. After receiving the reply notice the plaintiff wanted to file a suit for specific performance straightaway but the 1st defendant, through some mediators, importuned the plaintiff not to file a suit and promised to execute a sale deed in accordance with the agreement. But the 1st defendant went on postponing matters. When the plaintiff made enquiries he learnt that the 1st defendant had executed sale deeds in favour of defendants 2, 3 and other defendants even in August and October, 1956. The defendants were friends and close associates. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit for specific performance on 29-11-1958.

(2.) The 1st defendant chose to remain ex parte. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement contending that the 1st defendant came to his village in connection with the obsequies of Lakshmamma. As he apprehended trouble from his lessees Srinivasa Goud and Krishnamurthy Rao he wanted to lease out the properties to somebody else. It was arranged that the properties should be leased out to the 2nd defendant for two years. A lease deed was accordingly executed on 25-12-1955. When the 1st defendant informed Srinivasa Goud about it the latter became hostile and threatened that he would not surrender possession of the land after the expiry of his lease. The 1st defendant grew apprehensive and decided to sell away the properties immediately. He negotiated with the 2nd defendant and several others in the village and finally he agreed to sell the suit properties to the 2nd defendant for a sum of Rs. 8,500/-. The agreement was executed on 1-1-1956 and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid as advance. The plaintiff and his friends who were aggrieved with the execution of this agreement in favour of the 2nd defendant took the 1st defendant to the plaintiff's house on 2-1-1956 and by threats and entreaties extracted the suit agreement from the 1st defendant. Subsequently, the 1st defendant in pursuance of the agreement dated 1-1-1956, executed a sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant on 17-8-1956. After purchasing the properties the 2nd defendant sold portions of the same to defendants 4, 7, 14 to 21, 23 to 33, 35, 36 and 39 to 50 under various sale deeds from time to time. The 2nd defendant and his alienees were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the alleged agreement in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) The 10th defendant also filed a written statement setting up an agreement of sale dated 25-12-1955 in his favour in respect of certain properties. Pursuant to the agreement in his favour the 1st defendant executed two sale deeds dated 15-1-1956 and 25-4-1956 in his favour. He was not aware of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff. He was a bona fide purchaser for value.