D RAMA MURTHY Vs. LAKKARAJU LALITHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit O.S.No.140 of 1986 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur for specific performance of agreement of sale Ex.A.1 9 dated 2-1-1985 executed by defendants 1 to 4 and 8 personally and on behalf of defendants 5 to 7 selling plaint schedule property bearing H.No.5-54-1, situated at Brodipet of Guntur Municipality, of an extent of 33541 Sq.feet by executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and for possession; and in case of default by them, by the Court executing the sale deed in his favour or in the alternative for damages for the breach of contract of sale in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and for costs of the suit. The parties are herein after referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit on 24-4-1986. The averments of the plaint are that defendant No. 1 is the wiidow of L.Dathathreyasharma. Defendants 2 to 4 are the sons and defendants 5 to 8 are their daughters. Said Dathathreyasharma is the owner of the schedule house and he died intestate and the property devolved on the defendants. The schedule house is not capable of being divided and conveniently enjoyed by all the eight defendants as equal share holders, therefore, they put up the same for sale, for which, the plaintiff agreed to purchase it. The bargain was struck originally with defendants 1, 4 and 8 who are in Guntur in the said house for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and a contract of sale was executed by defendants 1 and 4 only on 2-12-1984 in favour of the plaintiff promising to get the other sharers to execute the sale deed. On that day, the plaintiff paid part consideration of Rs.25,000/- to the defendants 1 and 4. The plaintiff did not know them that there are differences between the defendants and knowing the family and its connections, the plaintiff believed the representation of the defendants 1 and 4 and entered into the agreement of sale with defendants 1 and 4 on 2-12-1984 vide Ex.A23. Later, the defendants 1. and 4 represented that all other defendants also agreed to sell the schedule house to the plaintiff, but that some difficulty is being encountered regarding the amount to be spent for the marriage expenses of 8th defendant and that he might take another contract of sale for Rs.3,75,000/-, which would be executed and specifically performed by one and all the defendants. The plaintiff, not being a person well versed in legal matters and being a soft person, could be persuaded to agree to that course, as it would not affect him while it helps the defendants 1, 4 and 8 who represented that they took the consent of others and accordingly on 2-1-1985, the defendants 1 to 4 and 8 executed another agreememt of sale Ex.A19 for the sale of the said house for a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- and the plaintiff plaid Rs.75,000/- being part of the consideration. As per the terms of the said agreement of sale, the balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid before 31-3-1985 by the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4 and 8 should execute the sale deed along with other defendants-the married daughters whom they undertook to bring and get the sale deed executed and in case of default on the part of the plaintiff, he had to pay interest on the balance sale consideration at the rate of 18% per annum. It was also agreed that the defendants should obtain the income tax clearance certificate, Encumbrance Certificate and pay Municipal Taxes, electricity and water charges and deliver the receipts and that the defendants 1 to 4 and 8 would obtain a relinquishment deed from the married daughters defendants 5 to 7 of their rights in the schedule property, in case defendants 1 to 4 and 8 are unable to get defendants 5 to 7 to Guntur, as two of them are residing at Hyderabad, at least power of attorney has to be obtained for them to execute the sale deed, but since the defendants did not fulfill any of the obligations undertaken by them and each began to accuse the other for the delay in performing their obligations and began to quarrel as between themselves, the plaintiff tried to get threw the transaction by negotiating with the defendants both personally and through a commonly known mediators namely Dr.Bujji, Lokanadhatm, Manipalli Sreeramamurthy and Desaraju Anjaneyulu and others by going to Hyderabad several times with them giving up his busy private practice and with heavy costs.

(3.) Nonetheless the defendants did not agree as between themselves. Meanwhile to add fuel to the fire, prices began to go up and they entertained, at any rate some of the defendants, the idea of reciling from the contract of sale to make some more money. Negotiations were started and were carried on by the defendants endlessly not agreeing to any reasonable course, by always somebody or other putting a spoke. The plaintiff who had made ready with the balance of consideration by the stipulated time could not finish the transaction though almost a year elapsed from that date. So, he got a registered notice Ex.A3 dated 27-2-1986 issued to all the defendants. The defendants got divided into groups and defendants 1 and 8 received the registered notices, but choose to keep quite without giving any reply. Defendants 2 and 3 came down to Guntur and sent replies and pleaded that there was no fair price, but it was brought in collusion with defendants 1 and 4 and they kept the house vacated for registration of the sale deed losing heavy rents resulting in their running into debts. It is further stated in the reply that as per the terms of the said contract of sale they approached the plaintiff in April and October 1985 and February 1986, but the plaintiff did not agree. Defendants 2 and 3 stated that they are prepared to execute the sale deed to the extent of their share in the house. The 5th defendant did not give any reply. Defendants 6 and 7 gave replies pleading ignorance about the alleged execution of Ex.A19 agreement of sale and payment of money by the plaintiff. Defendant No.4 gave reply stating that Dathathreya Sharma has not died intestate, but he executed a Will deed dated 13-10-1970 bequeathing the said property in his favour and he signed the said contract without full knowledge of the contents and he also stated that his signature was forged as he was not aware of having signed on it and under the ill advise of his eldest brother, he might have signed on some papers without knowing the consequences. Thus, it is stated that defendants 1 and 8 maintained silence, defendants 2 and 3 admitted the execution of agreement of sale Ex.A19, defendants 6 and 7 pleaded ignorance as they did not sign the two contracts of sale, defendant No.6 kept quite and defendant No.4 set up title in himself. Thus, it is clear that there are differences between the defendants and they have not co-operated to perform their part of contract of sale dated 2-1-1985 and the defendants 1 to 4 and 8 committed breach of the same and their offer to execute the sale deed for their l/8lh share each by defendants 2 and 3 without fulfilling their obligation to get it executed by the non-executants-married sisters is of no avail. Hence, the suit was filed.