BKOTTIPROLU SEETHARAMAMMA Vs. RAMIREDDI PATTA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of cross suits and as they relate to the same transaction, they may be conveniently dealt with together. A.S. No. 64 arises out of a suit for specific performance instituted by the vendor. A.S. No. 65 arises out of a suit instituted by the intending purchasers for getting refund of the advance paid by them in pursuance of the contract of sale. It will be convenient to refer to the parties by their position in A.S. No. 64. It is common ground that on 20th August 1929, the parties entered into the agreement, Ex. A for the sale and purchase of about 1,31 acres of land for Rs. 10,100 and that the defendants paid Rs. 1000 in cash as advance. The document provided that the sale should be completed before the end of June 1930. For reasons which it is unnecessary to go into now, the transaction was not so completed and there was a revised contract between the parties on 25 July 1930 (Ex. B). The price was reduced by Rs. 1000 and the time for completion was extended to 25 August 1930. Even this contract was not carried out in due course and after protracted correspondence, in the course of which each party blamed the other, the vendor instituted the suit for specific performance on 18 August 1932. The vendees instituted the suit for the refund on 25 July 1933.

(2.) In the form which the controversy ultimately assumed, the principal question for decision turned out to be whether the plaintiff was in a position to convey a title free from reasonable doubt. Contentions were also raised as to whether it was open to the defendants to question the nature of the plaintiff's title and whether the defendants had not themselves been guilty of breach of contract. In the suit for the refund of the deposit, questions were raised as to the right of the purchasers to claim refund and as to their right to claim interest. While holding that to a certain extent the purchasers were responsible for the failure of the transaction, the lower Court nevertheless held that they were entitled to insist upon the plaintiff making out a good title and that the plaintiff had failed to do so. In the result, the specific performance suit was dismissed and the purchaser's suit was decreed; but, in the circumstances, the lower Court disallowed the costs of the purchasers and also declined to allow their claim for interest. Against these decrees, appeals have been preferred by the vendor. The purchasers have filed memoranda of objections.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant attempted to maintain that it was clear from the conduct of the parties that the purchasers had knowledge of the source and the nature of the plaintiff's title as one of them had been connected with an earlier transaction of the plaintiff and the deed of partition Ex. G, under which the plaintiff claimed title had been referred to in the contracts of sale, Exs. A and B. But, as pointed out by the learned District Judge, the mere fact of knowledge on the purchasers part of these earlier transactions will not disentitle the purchasers to insist upon proof of the vendor's title unless they had agreed to limit the nature of the inquiry into title or had agreed to accept the title of the vendor such as it was. We cannot accede to the contention that the purchasers in this case had agreed to accept whatever title the plaintiff had, even if it was defective. The plaintiff's husband examined as P.W. 1 admitted that the contract was to sell and purchase an absolute title to the property. And the price agreed upon, namely, Rs. 10,100 for the 1.31 acres, clearly shows that the bargain must have been in respect of an absolute estate and not merely for the limited estate of a Hindu daughter in her father's property.