CHUNDURU PADMAVATHI Vs. CHUNDURU NARASIMNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The parties are closely related to each other. The defendant/appellant is the widowed daughter-in-law of the respondent/ plaintiff. The respondent filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 14-8-1979 executed by the appellant agreeing to sell the suit schedule property, which consists of Ac.1-00 of wet land in Garikapadu village, for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,750-00. On the date of agreement, a sum of Rs.200-00 was paid by the respondent to the appellant as advance. As per the terms of the agreement the balance of sale consideration is payable within one month from the date of the agreement, at the time of registration of the sale deed and the appellant has to deliver the possession of the land along with the standibg crop at the time of reegestration. On 27-8-1979 the respondent issued Ex.A-2 notice stating that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and further stating that it was learnt by him that the appellant was in arrears of revenue taxes and also a Land Mortgage Bank loan and called upon the appellant to clear of all her dues and execute a registered sale deed in his favour within 10 days. On 11-9-1979 the appellant sent a reply (Ex.A-3) through her Counsel stating that the sale consideration agreed to was actually Rs.7,500-00 but the agreement dated 14-8-1979 was obtained by the respondent by exercising undue influence, coercion and misrepresentation taking advantage of her weak position. She denied that there was any Land Mortgage Bank loan or any other encumbrance on the property. She also denied that there were any arrears of land revenue due from her. She, however, stated that if really there are any such arrears of land revenue payable in respect of the land, the respondent may deduct the same from the sale consideration payable by him and pay the balance to her and obtain the sale deed within 10 days from the date of receipt of her reply. On 22-10-1979 the appellant, however, sent a further notice through her Counsel to the respondent (Ex.B-1) stating that on thorough consideration and on the advice of well-wishers she is voluntarily giving up her contention made in her reply notice dated 11-9-1979 with respect to the amount of consideration mentioned in the contract of sale dated 14-8-1979 and that she is ready and willing to execute a registered sale deed provided the respondent pays the balance of sale consideration of Rs.5,500-00 after deducting the advance of Rs.200-00 paid by him on the date of agreement. She reiterated that there is no encumbrance or mortgage in favour of the Land Mortgage Bank. She further stated in the said notice that the respondent is at liberty to ascertain the land revenue dues and he can deduct the same from out of the balance of sale consideration payable to her. She also stated that if the respondent is still in doubts about the title and encumbrance on the land he is at liberty to obtain encumbrance certificate. She undertook to deliver the land along with the standing crop on the date of registration. She finally stated in the said notice that she honestly and sincerely believes that the respondent is not having sufficient funds to pay the balance of sale consideration and requested the respondent to purchase the stamps and take the sale deed and get it registered after paying the balance of sale consideration within a week after receipt of the said notice, failing which she will be obliged to file a suit for specific performance of contract. It is the case of the respondent that after the receipt of Ex.B-1 notice he purchased the stamps worth Rs.400-00 and he has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but the appellant though pretending to be ready was not willing to execute the sale deed in his favour. Hence he filed the suit on 24-12-1981 i.e., after the lapse of more than two years.

(2.) In the written statement filed by her, the appellant resisted the suit contending that taking advantage of her weak position the respondent obtained the agreement of sale by undue influence, coercion and misrepresentation, but however, at the instance of the elders she agreed to abide by the contract. She, therefore, took initiative and issued the notice dated 22-10-1979 calling upon the respondent to pay the balance of sale consideration and obtain the registered sale deed but the respondent was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and committed breach. The contract therefore stood cancelled and the respondent is not entitled to the relief of specific performance.

(3.) On the above pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues for trial: