SHAIK MASTAN Vs. KAREMPUDI DHARMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants in a suit for specific performance are the appellants. For the sake of convenience parties to the appeal would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.

(2.) The case, in brief, of the plaintiff is that kshasimbi (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) i. e. , wife of first defendant and mother of defendants 2 to 6, was the owner of Ac. 1. 25 cents of wet land situated in r. S. Nos. 114/2 and 115/2 of Gollapudi village (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). She agreed to sell the suit land to him for rs. 30,000.00, at the rate of Rs. 21,000.00 per acre and received Rs. 1,000.00 as advance and executed an agreement of sale in his favour on 4-6-1976 and put him in possession thereof. The said agreement was attested by the first defendant. As per the terms of the said agreement, he has to discharge the debts due from the deceased to third parties mentioned therein. So, he discharged those debts and is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Since the deceased died without executing the sale deed in his favour, he got issued a registered notice to the defendants to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the suit land in his favour for which defendants 2 to 4 sent a reply through their advocate denying the agreement. Later all the defendants approached him and sought time to execute and register the sale deed, and made an endorsement on the reverse of the agreement on 2-6-1979, but failed to do so.

(3.) First and second defendants filed separate written statements. First defendant also filed additional written statement after obtaining leave from the Court. Third defendants filed a memo adopting the additional written statement of the first defendant. The case, in brief, of the first defendant is that the agreement of sale relied on by the plaintiff is not binding on him and the other defendants as it was obtained by taking advantage of his illiteracy and the inexperience of the deceased. Plaintiff, who used to lend money to him and the deceased, was obtaining promissory notes in the names of his nominees for higher amounts than that were lent, and gave pressure to discharge those debts, with a view to coerce him and the deceased to sell away the suit land to him, and had, with that intention, filed o. S. No. 538 of 1976 in the name of his nominee brother Venkata Rathaiah, and got the properties of the deceased attached before judgment. When the deceased questioned the plaintiff about that abrupt action, he suggested to the deceased to keep her documents of title as security for the amount due from her, and told her that she need not appeal in the suit filed against her. Succumbing to the mechanizations of the plaintiff, the deceased, who was sick, gave her original title deeds dated 24-6-1946 and 24-4-1950 to the plaintiff. At that time she was made to sign a document in the house of the village Karanam on 4-6-1976 at 7. 30 or 8 pm by dominating her will, with his attestation thereon, without reading over or explaining the contents therein to them. The deceased cannot read or write Telugu language but can only sign in Urdu, and so under an impression that that document was mortgage by deposit of title deeds, they affixed their signature and thumb mark therein. In fact, no amount was paid either to him or to the deceased at that time, nor was the possession of the suit land delivered to the plaintiff on that day. Plaintiff forcibly entered into possession of the suit land. Assuming that O. S. No. 538 of 1976 would be withdrawn as per the assurance given by the plaintiff, the deceased did not appear in that suit, and came to know later that the said suit was decreed ex parte. Extent of land mentioned in the schedule appended to the agreement does not tally with the extent of land purchased by the deceased, because ac. 0. 28 4/5 cents purchased by him and his brothers from Md. Akbar intervenes the land in R. S. No. 115/2 and 114/2 purchased by the deceased. Since the deceased was not the absolute owner of the entire land in r. S. No. 114/2 for her to enter into an agreement to sell the same. Plaintiff who did not choose to take any action in spite of his and his children denying the agreement relied on by him, got issued the notice dated 3-5-1979, falsely alleging that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, after there is a steep increase in the value of the suit land. The allegation that he and the other defendants had on 2-6-1979 made an endorsement on the reverse of the agreement is not true. As the debts shown in the agreement relied on by the plaintiff are deemed to have been discharged by virtue of the provisions of the A. P. Agriculture indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (Act 7 of 1977) , there were no subsisting debts at the time of the alleged agreement for their being discharged by the plaintiff and so plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs sought.