E BHAGWAN DAS Vs. DILIP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are appellants. One Dr.E.N. Das, along with his two sons, who are Appellants 1 and 2 herein entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff- first respondent herein, on 4-7-1973, for sale of site admeasuring 1,718 sq. yards, together with building bearing Municipal No.20-E-2 situate at St John's Road, Secunderabad for a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh. Plaintiff paid asum of Rs. 10,000.00 by way of advance. As per the terms of the agreement, defendants have to execute and register sale deed on or before 4-1-1974 after receiving the balance of sale consideration- It is made clear in the agreement that the defendants have executed a registered sale deed in favour of the fourth defendant on 22-4-1958, who has agreed to reconvey the said property within certain period on compliance of certain conditions, and that she has no objection to convey the property in favour of purchaser, provided the vendors first comply with the conditions for reconveyance of the property. Of course, the agreement contains several usual terms that in case of default by the purchaser he shall forego asum of Rs.5,000.00 out of the earnest money of Rs. 10,000.00 and refund the balance of Rs.5,000.00. If on the other hand the default is on the part of the vendors, they should pay a sum of Rs.5,000.00 as damages in addition to refund of earnest money of Rs.10,000.00.

(2.) While so, as the defendants did not take steps to complete the transaction, the plaintiff issued registered notice under Ex.A3 dated 10-12-1973 requesting the defendants to complete formalities or return the advance sum of Rs. 10,000.00 together with damages of Rs.5,000.00 as stipulated. Defendants replied to the said notice on 24-1-1974 under Ex.A5, stating that Kamala Bai Modi (fourth defendant) raised certain objections, which are being verified; therefore, they sought extension of time by two months for completing the formalities. The plaintiff again issued Ex.A6 notice dated 30-31974 stating that in spite of extension of time, defendants have not completed the formalities. It is further stated that in case of failure, they will be held responsible for refund of Rs.15,000.00 as stipulated, and also for reduction of price by 10 per cent. The plaintiff again issued another notice under Ex. A8 dated 23-7-1974 stating that he is ready with the balance of Rs.80,000/ - and asked the defendants to complete the formalities, or else, they will be responsible for refund of Rs. 15,000.00 and reduction of price by 10 per cent. As there was no response, plaintiff issued notice under Ex. A9 dated 10-9-1974 calling upon the defendants to write to fourth defendant to join execution of registered sale deed, or else, they will be responsible for Rs. 15,000.00 and reduction of price by 10 per cent as agreed to orally. Evidently, the said notice was followed by another notice dated 14-10-1974 (Ex.A10) almost on the same tenor and tone as Ex. A9, however adding that though they agreed to repay Rs. 15,000.00, plaintiff is insisting on payment of Rs. 18,000.00. It is denied that they ever agreed for reduction of price by 10 per cent. Therefore, they called upon the plaintiff to receive Rs. 15,000.00 within three days from the date of receipt of notice, or else they would not be liable to pay any amount. By way of reply to this notice, plaintiff sent Ex.A13 notice dated 11-12-1973 stating that it is false to state that he has no interest to purchase the property. The claim that the plaintiff is demanding a further sum of Rs.3,000.00 is false; but as the defendants have got better offer they are dodging. Practically this is the last notice that was exchanged between the parties. Dissatisfied with the conduct of the defendants, plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement for sale.

(3.) Originally, the plaintiff did not ask for alternate relief, but later he amended the plaint by including alternate relief for refund of earnest money, together with interest.