BODDU SATYAVATHI Vs. BODDU RAMAKRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 07.07.1996 passed in O.S.No.6 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur.

(2.) The parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred as plaintiff and defendant for the sake of convenience. The facts, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal in brief, are as follows: The plaintiff herein Smt.Boddu Satyavathi filed the suit for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 25.06.1983 and for direction to the respondent-defendant to execute sale deed within the time stipulated by the Court or in the alternative to direct the respondent-defendant to refund Rs.60,000/- at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization by creating a charge on the plaint schedule property and also for a direction to give Rs.3,600/- being the value of the stamps purchased by the plaintiff but carried away by the defendant, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization and also costs of the suit. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is the absolute owner of two items of land shown in the plaint schedule ad-measuring Ac.2-40 cents and he agreed to sell the said property for Rs.60,000/- @ Rs.25,000/- per acre to the plaintiff herein and received Rs.30,000/- towards earnest money and delivered possession of the land to the plaintiff and executed agreement of sale dated 25.06.1983 and the father-in-law of the plaintiff Sri Boddu Ramachandra Rao arranged the said transaction on behalf of the plaintiff. As per the terms of that agreement the plaintiff shall discharge the loans due from the defendant to the Co-operative Society and Bank of India from out of the sale consideration and shall pay the remaining balance on or before 04.08.1983 and take sale deed from the defendant at the expenses of the plaintiff. Sri Boddu Ramachandra Rao who looked after the transaction paid Rs.17,215.53 ps. to Bank of India, Pasivedala on 10.08.1983 towards the discharge of the debt due by the defendant and further paid a sum of Rs.7,703/- in discharge of the loan due to Dharmavaram Co-operative Central Bank at Nidadavole and thus the total sum of Rs.54,918.53 ps. was paid and the balance of Rs.5,081.47 ps. was also paid on 18.08.1983 at the time of execution of sale deed. The plaintiff's father-in-law and the defendant went to the Sub-Registrar's office on 18.08.1983 and the plaintiffs father-in- law purchased stamps worth Rs.3600/- as per the market value of the land from one Somayajulu, a stamp vendor at Nidadavole for the purpose of drafting the sale deed on the said stamps. Sale deed has been drafted on those stamps by Chamarti Subba Rao, a licensed document writer who was head village Karnam of Nidadavole. The plaintiffs father-in-law paid the balance of Rs.5,081.47 ps. to the defendant and the defendant signed the sale deed as well as papers for mutation in the name of the plaintiff to be presented to the Sub-Registrar. But by the time the writing of the sale deed was completed it was late in the evening and could not be registered on that day and the defendant made a note of the amounts received and also amounts paid to the banks by the plaintiff in his own hand and showing the balance due to him as Rs.5,081.47 ps. on a small paper before the execution of the sale deed and gave it to the plaintiff's father-in-law. After completion of the document the defendant demanded further payment of Rs.358/- stating that he incurred the said expenditure for transplanting paddy on 05.06.1983 for which plaintiff's father-in-law did not agree. As the document could not be registered for want of time and as the demand for payment of Rs.358/- was still there, the completed document and other papers including the sale agreement were kept with Sri Chamarti Manumantha Rao who was the village Karanam of Gopavaram for safe custody to be given at the time of registration. As the plaintiff's father-in-law was employed in Panchayat Raj department was very busy and could not look after the registration of the document for some time. On 18.12.1983 when the father-in-law of the plaintiff wanted to take steps for compulsory registration, the said Chamarti Hanumantha Rao with whom the papers were kept could not be traced on 18.12.1983 and then the father-in-law of the plaintiff suspected some foul play and lodged a report with the police at Nadadavole, but the police did not take any action. Later, Chamarti Hanumantha Rao returned to Nidadavole about ten days prior to the filing of the suit and informed the plaintiff that on 15.12.1983 the defendant came to him and asked for the documents stating that he wanted to verify the amounts and wanted to show the documents to his brother and that later did not return the said documents and then he too gave report to the police Nidadavole. Thus, the defendant having received the entire consideration committed offence of theft cheating and criminal breach of trust by taking away the documents. The defendant is proclaiming that he would enter into the plaint schedule property and hence the plaintiff had no option except to file the present suit for specific performance and the document could not be registered even if it is traced on account of lapse of more than four months.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement pleading as follows: Sri B.Ramachandra Rao, the father-in-law of the plaintiff is close relation of the dcfendant and he had implicit faith in Ramachandra Rao and the said Ramachandra Rao misused the trust reposed on him. When the defendant wanted to sell the plaint schedule property, Ramachandra Rao wanted to purchase the same in the name of his daughter-in-law and bargain was settled between him and Ramachandra Rao at Rs.25,000/- per acre. But, Ramachandra Rao paid only Rs.11,000/- and not Rs.30,000/- . On the date of agreement of sale, Ramachandra Rao took possession of the land. Ramachandra Rao agreed to discharge the loans of the defendant due to the Co-operative Society, Dharmavaram and Bank of India, Pasivedala and to pay the balance within one month fifteen days. Ramachandra Rao paid both the debits due to the Co-operative Society, Dharmavaram and Bank of Indiia, Pasivedala. On 15.08.1983 Ramachandra Rao informed the defendant that he would be securing the balance consideration by 18.08.1983 and the registration can be fixed on that day. Accordingly, the defendant was ready on 18.08.1983 to discharge the balance of sale consideration and to execute the sale deed. That himself and Ramachandra Rao went to Sub-Reg Strar's office on 18.08.1983. Ramachandra Rao purchased the stamps and instructed the document, writer Subba Rao to prepare the sale deed and other necessary papers for registration and when the defendant requested Ramachandra Rao to pay the balance of Rs.24,000/-and odd, Ramachandra Rao informed that his son Prasad went to Mukkamala to secure the amount and that he would return with the amount and the sale deed can be signed and presented for registration. Thereafter, the sale deed and other papers were made ready and the defendant signed on all the papers except the sale deed. They were waiting at Sub-Registrar's office for money. But the husband of the plaintiff did not return and the balance amount was not paid to the defendant and hence the defendant did not sign the sale deed. After waiting till 5.00 P.M. all of them returned to their respective houses. Thus, the sale deed could not be executed and presented for registration for non-payment of balance amount of Rs.24,000/- and odd. Subsequently also the defendant demanded Ramachandra Rao to pay the balance and complete the transaction, but Ramachandra Rao and his son have been postponing the same stating that the amount has not been secured, and dragged on the matter for more than four months with an ulterior motive. Ramachandra Rao by using his influence wanted to coerce the defendant with the help of police to execute the sale deed and attempted to get him arrested by the police. Ramachandra Rao invented a story that he sale deed was signed by the defendant and the papers were deposited with Hanumantha Rao, a village Karanam of Gopavaram and that the sale deed and other connected papers were taken away by the defendant. Both Ramachandra Rao and Hanumantha Rao are close friends and classmares and therefore they invented a false story. It is further pleaded that the defendant never wrote any chit mentioning the amounts received and amount due etc. The defendant never demanded Rs.358/- towards the expenditure for transplanting the paddy. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled for equitable relief of specific performance. Without paying the entire sale consideration, the plaintiff wants to enjoy the fruits of the land. The plaintiff is not entitled to get the sale deed registered and he wants to drag on the matter and there is no loss for the plaintiff as injunction has been obtained by therm and she is continuing in possession of the property without payment of balance consideration amount of more than Rs.24,000/-. The defendant further pleaded in the written statement that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance, the plaintiff should be directed to pay the balance consideration of Rs.24,080.47 ps. with interest at 12 % from the date of default i.e. 04.08.1983 and that vendors lien has to be created for the above said amount. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff has to pay the costs to the defendant and that the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.