Telangana High Court
Bandaru Laxma Reddy vs Racharla Prudhvi Raj on 3 June, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No. 2049 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 18.09.2018 passed in O.S.No.29 of 2012 by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.
2. The suit vide O.S.No.29 of 2012 was filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 11.01.2012. The trial Court after considering oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit in part with costs directing the respondent/defendant to pay back the advance amount of Rs.1,01,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of agreement of sale till date of decree and thereafter @ 6% till date of realization to the appellant/plaintiff and dismissed the suit in respect of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 11.01.2012. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, plaintiff in the suit preferred the present appeal.
2
3. For the sake of convenience, the appellant herein are referred as "plaintiff" and the respondent is referred as "defendant" as arrayed in the trial Court.
4. P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined on behalf of plaintiff and D.W.1 is examined on behalf of defendant. Exs.A1 to A5 are marked on behalf of plaintiff and Ex.B1 is marked on behalf of defendant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff mainly contended the judgment and decree of the trial Court is not according to law and facts of the case. The trial court allowed the suit in part without looking into the material before it and also erred in directing the return of the amount instead of directing the defendant to execute the sale deed. The trial Court held that the mother of the defendant ought to have been made as party to the suit. As the suit is for specific performance, the parties to the agreement can be made as parties. The trial Court erred in holding that Ex.A1 is not valid and also observed that schedule is not there in the agreement and failed to observe that the door number of the house is furnished in 3 the agreement of sale is valid. Therefore, requested this Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court.
6. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
7. The brief facts of the case are that the defendant is the owner of the house bearing No.8-7-630, consisting of a house with 2 mulgies respectively situated at Azam Road, Darugalli, Nizamabad (hereinafter referred as 'suit schedule property'). The plaintiff has been tenant in the mulgi of the defendant, carrying on milk business for the last 10 years and paid rents regularly. The defendant succeeded to the house property from his father, late Gangaram as the legal heir and his father originally purchased the suit schedule property from Mohammad Abdul Hafeez, S/o.Mohammad Abdul Khadhar vide registered sale deed document No.531/1963 dated 19.04.1963. The defendant was in need of money for his family needs and he offered to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.11,89,000/- and executed the agreement of sale dated 11.01.2012.
4
8. On the sale deed, the defendant's wife and mother have signed as attesters along with Anjaiah and Ramesh. The plaintiff paid an advance amount of Rs.1,01,000/- on 11.01.2012 and on the same day, the agreement of sale has been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and it is agreed by the defendant that he will receive the balance amount of sale consideration after three months of the date of executing of agreement i.e., 11.01.2012 and to register the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Though plaintiff was willing to pay the balance amount of sale consideration to the defendant, the defendant went on protracting the issue. The plaintiff got issued a notice dated 07.05.2012 calling the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute register sale deed within a period of 15 days of receipt of notice and the defendant received the notice on 14.05.2012. But the defendant failed to execute the register sale deed in favour of the plaintiff even after receiving the legal notice. As such, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale and 5 prayed the Court to direct the defendant to return back the advance amount with interest.
9. The defendant in the written statement filed before the trial Court denied the execution of agreement of sale deed. He stated that he was suffering from mental illness and was under treatment at Hyderabad. He stated that the wife of the plaintiff requested the plaintiff to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- as a security deposit to enter into lease deed and the plaintiff agreed for the same. The plaintiff obtained signatures of the defendant and his wife on a blank stamp paper by paying Rs.1,00,000/-. Since the defendant was in a mentally disturbed condition, signed on the stamp paper along with his wife and mother. Since the plaintiff is the tenant of the mulgi for the last several years, the defendant trusted him and signed on the said blank papers. The plaintiff created the suit document. The property is situated at Azam road in Nizamabad City and the value of the property is very high and only one mulgi will costs about Rs.20,00,000/-. As such question of agreeing to sell the entire property for a sum of 6 Rs.11,89,000/- does not arise. The plaintiff deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as a security deposit for the tenancy of the plaintiff in the mulgi, but not as a part payment/advance of the sale consideration.
10. P.W.1 examined P.W.2 who attested Ex.A1, agreement of sale, dated 11.01.2012. He stated that Rs.1,01,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. Though P.W.2 supported the version of P.W.1 in the chief examination, in the cross-examination, he stated that specification of schedule property with measurement is not mentioned in Ex.A1, but it is described as one house with two mulgies.
11. P.W.1 in the cross-examination admitted that mother of defendant is senior citizen. He stated that he does not know whether any coparceners or successors to the suit property are lying and their rights are existing over suit schedule property. He stated that he is aware that the defendant's mother is alive. Ex.A1 does not disclose the boundaries and its owners.
7
12. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the property was purchased by father of defendant in his life time and the defendant executed the same after the death of his father. The date of death of father of defendant was not mentioned by the defendant at any point of time. The details of the suit schedule property were not mentioned in Ex.A1.
12. Defendant filed Ex.B1 medical report and it shows that he was addicted to alcohol and he was admitted in the Open Male Ward-III on 20.02.2013. The trial Court observed that the document under Ex.A1 was executed on 11.01.2012. The entries in medical report are form 2006 to 2013 and they clearly show that the defendant was addicted to alcohol and having treatment in the hospital. As such it cannot be said that he was mentally fit to execute the document.
13. The plaintiff issued legal notice subsequent to the stipulated time. As such the trial Court rejected the plea of specific performance of contract and directed the defendant to pay back the advance amount. It is for the Court to see 8 whether the judgment of the trial Court is on proper appreciation of facts or not.
14. The defendant denied the agreement of sale and simply stated that the wife of the plaintiff requested the plaintiff to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- as a security deposit to enter into lease deed and the plaintiff agreed for the same. The plaintiff obtained signatures of the defendant and his wife on a blank stamp paper by paying Rs.1,00,000/-. On perusal of Ex.A1, it shows that it was sold by defendant in favour of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.11,89,000/- and agreed to receive Rs.10,88,000/- after three months. He further admitted that in case of the cancellation of agreement of sale, he agreed to give Rs.2,02,000/- as per the agreement. The balance amount has to be paid after three months i.e., April, 2012. The plaintiff issued written notice in May 2012, in which he stated that he is ready to pay the balance amount and requested the defendant to execute the registered sale deed within 15 days.
15. Admittedly, plaintiff is tenant of defendant. Defendant was addicted to alcohol. The trial Court 9 observed that defendant has not executed the right over the property. The details of the house and the measurements of the house were not mentioned in the agreement of sale. As the defendant was not mentally fit, plaintiff took his signatures during the period of his intoxication, as such the trial Court rejected the plea of specific performance, but ordered for return of the amount. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is justified and needs no interference. However, in the agreement, the defendant agreed to pay double the amount. Therefore, respondent/defendant is directed to return Rs.2,02,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which he is liable to pay with interest @ 12% per annum and the appeal is modified to that extent.
16. In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court. But regarding the repayment of the amount, respondent is directed to return Rs.2,02,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which he is liable to pay interest 10 @ 12% per annum till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 03.06.2024 CHS