Karnataka High Court

Sri. Naveen Chandra M vs Sri. P. Gokul on 21 May, 2024

                             1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2024

                       BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

     WRIT PETITION NO.28862 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRA M
S/O P.N. MALLESHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
DOOR NO.801, "GURU NILAYA"
KARYALAYA EXTENSION,
HOLENARASIPURA,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573211
                                      ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH P.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SRI. P. GOKUL
     S/O LATE C. PUTTEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

     RESPONDENT NO.1 DECEASED ON
     22.12.2020
     LRS ARE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3.

     AMENDMENT AS PER THE HON'BLE
     COURT ORDER DATED 04.01.2024.

2.   SRI. G. PRASHANTH KUMAR
     S/O P. GOKUL,
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

3.   SRI. G. YASHWANTH KUMAR
     S/O P. GOKUL,
                             2


    AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
    ALL ARE RESIDING AT
    EDIGARA BEEDHI,
    HOLENARASIPURA TOWN,
    HASSAN DISTRICT-573211
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY  SRI.  CHANDRAKANTH         GOULAY,   ADVOCATE    FOR
RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
IN O.S.NO.13/2011, ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
HOLENARSIPURA AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT
HOLENARASIPURA ON 15.06.2019 IN AN INTERIM APPLICATION
BEARING NO.XIV FILED UNDER SECTION 65 OF INDIAN
EVIDENCE ACT BY THE RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT HEREIN IN
ORIGINAL SUIT BEARING O.S.NO.13/2011, AND THEREBY
QUASH THE AFORSAID ORDER DATED 15.06.2019 BEING
PERVERSE, CAPRICIOUS, ARBITRARY AND BIASED FOR BEING
PASSED WITHOUT PROPER JUDICIAL REASONING AND MUCH
AGAINST TO THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW VIDE
ANNEXURE-P.

      THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER ON 29.02.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                         ORDER

The plaintiff in O.S.No.13/2011 on the file of the

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura (henceforth

referred to as 'Trial Court') has filed this writ petition

challenging the correctness of an order dated 15.06.2019

by which, an application (I.A.No.XIV) filed by the

defendant No.2 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872, was allowed.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as

they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The petitioner

was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants

before the Trial Court.

3. The suit in O.S.No.13/2011 was filed for

specific performance of an agreement of sale dated

10.08.2009 and for perpetual injunction restraining the

defendants from alienating the suit property. The plaintiff

claimed that the defendants had agreed to convey the suit

property under an agreement of sale dated 10.08.2009 for

a total sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and had

received a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- as part of the sale

consideration and the remaining was payable at the time

of execution and registration of a deed of absolute sale by

or before 31.12.2009. The said agreement was duly

registered. The plaintiff claimed that he caused a notice

dated 17.08.2010 informing the defendants that he was

ready and willing to complete the transaction. However,

the defendants tried to alienate the suit property and

therefore, the plaintiff was advised to seek specific

performance of the agreement of sale.

4. The defendants filed their written statement

and admitted the execution of the sale agreement dated

10.08.2009. They claimed that on the same day, another

agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and

defendants, whereby the consideration for sale of suit

property was agreed to be Rs.17,90,000/- and the

defendants received Rs.5,00,000/- and the balance

payable was Rs.12,90,000/-. Therefore, they claimed that

both the agreements were to be read together. They

claimed that an unregistered agreement was also executed

evidencing the above and hence, were to be read together.

They claimed that when the plaintiff approached them,

they requested the plaintiff to pay the balance sum of

Rs.12,90,000/- at which point, the plaintiff replied that he

had not executed any other agreement than the one that

was duly registered. Therefore, they contended that they

were not bound to conclude the transaction. Further, they

contended that the plaintiff had rented out the suit

premises to a person named Sri. Chandrashekara even

before the execution of the agreement. They contended

that the defendant No.1 was forced to file a suit against

Sri. Chandrashekara, which was pending consideration in

O.S.No.73/2010 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.),

Holenarasipura. Therefore, they claimed that the

agreement dated 10.08.2009 which was registered, was

not enforceable. They further contended that the original

of the unregistered agreement of sale dated 10.08.2009

was with the plaintiff and a copy of the document duly

signed by the plaintiff was given to the defendants.

5. Based on these contentions, the Trial Court

framed issues in the suit which are as follows:-

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is a tenant under him with respect to the suit property and executed

a Rent Agreement dated 18/06/2007 in his favour as alleged?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is in default of payment of arrears of Rent as alleged?

3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the tenancy of the defendant has been terminated in accordance with law?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of Rent and Possession of suit schedule property as prayed for?

5) What Order or Decree?

6. The suit was set down for trial. The plaintiff

was examined as PW.1 and two witnesses were examined

as PW.2 and PW.3.

7. The defendants filed an application (I.A.No.IX)

under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of CPC to produce a

photocopy of the unregistered agreement of sale. The

production of this document was opposed by the plaintiff

on the ground that the original of the document was not

produced. The Trial Court in terms of the order dated

29.09.2012, rejected the application, which was challenged

before this Court in W.P.No.43737/2012. This Court in

terms of the order dated 03.12.2014, held that there was

no prohibition for the Court to accept the document in

order to prove his case and hence, allowed the petition and

remitted the case back to the Trial Court to reconsider it

and pass appropriate orders. Later, the Trial Court in terms

of its order dated 13.01.2016, allowed the application and

permitted the defendants to produce the document.

8. Following this, the defendants filed an

application (I.A.No.VIII) under Order VI Rule 11 of CPC for

a direction to the plaintiff to produce the original

unregistered agreement of sale dated 10.08.2009. This

application was again opposed by the plaintiff, who

claimed that there was no such unregistered agreement

that was entered into between the plaintiff and defendants

and that the plaintiff was not in possession of the said

agreement and hence, the question of producing it did not

arise. The Trial Court in terms of its order dated

11.02.2016 rejected the application.

9. The defendants thereafter filed an application

(I.A.No.XIII) under Order XII Rule 8 of CPC along with a

notice in the prescribed form to the plaintiff to produce the

unregistered agreement of sale dated 10.08.2009. They

contended that on the day when the agreement of sale

dated 10.08.2009 was registered for a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/-, another agreement was executed on the

same day, by which the plaintiff had agreed to purchase

the suit property for a sum of Rs.17,90,000/-.

10. The plaintiff opposed this application

contending that the application was barred by the

principles of res judicata in view of the earlier order passed

on I.A.No.VII by the Court on 11.02.2016.

11. The Trial Court considered the contentions

urged and in terms of its order dated 09.01.2019, rejected

the application. Later, defendant No.2 filed an application

(I.A.No.XIV) under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act,

1872 seeking permission to lead secondary evidence on

the unregistered agreement of sale dated 10.08.2009. It

was contended in the affidavit accompanying the

application that on the date of the agreement dated

10.08.2009, another agreement was also executed

whereunder, the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the suit

property for a sum of Rs.17,90,000/-, but the said

agreement was not registered at the behest of the plaintiff,

who wanted to avoid payment of stamp duty. He

contended that the original of the unregistered agreement

of sale dated 10.08.2009 was with the plaintiff and that he

had given a copy of the said document, which was duly

signed by him. He claimed that the plaintiff had

suppressed that agreement and had played fraud upon the

defendants. Hence, he claimed that the defendants were

entitled to mark the said document as secondary evidence.

12. This application was opposed by the plaintiff,

who denied that he had executed an agreement of sale

dated 10.08.2009, whereby he had agreed to purchase the

suit property for Rs.17,90,000/-. He claimed that the

defendant No.2 did not prove the execution of the said

agreement and also did not prove that the original of the

said agreement was in the custody of the plaintiff.

Therefore, he contended that the said document cannot be

treated as secondary evidence. He further contended that

the Trial Court had earlier rejected an application filed

under Order VI Rule 11 of CPC vide order dated

11.02.2016 and an application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3)

of CPC vide order dated 29.09.2012. Therefore, he

contended that the defendants were not entitled to mark

the unregistered document as secondary evidence. He

claimed that the defendants had failed to comply with the

procedure contemplated under Section 66 of the Indian

Evidence Act to mark it as secondary evidence by

establishing that there was sufficient reason for non-

production of the primary evidence.

13. The Trial Court considered the contentions and

in terms of its impugned order, allowed the application

subject to certain conditions mentioned in the order.

14. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff

has filed this petition.

15. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended

that the impugned order is highly perverse and lacks

application of judicial mind. He contends that if the

document in original exists, then that document alone

should be produced before the Court as primary evidence.

However, if the document is lost or not traceable or

destroyed or held by the opponent or in the custody of the

third party from whom it cannot be secured, then

secondary evidence is permissible. He submits that in

order to admit secondary evidence, the Court is bound to

bear in mind the nature of the document, the enquiries

made about the original and the evidence to establish the

loss or destruction of the document. Therefore, he

contends that the defendants were bound to establish the

existence of the document and also that it was in the

possession of the plaintiff. He contends that there is

nothing to establish the existence of the document and

that it was in the custody of the plaintiff and therefore,

secondary evidence was impermissible. He further

contended that when the defendants filed their written

statement, they did not even furnish a copy of the alleged

agreement dated 10.08.2009, which was not registered

and therefore, the late production of the said document

created a doubt about the genuinity of the document. In

support of his contention, he replied upon the judgments

of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Hari

Singh vs. Shish Ram and others [AIR 2003 P & H

150] and Bansari Dass vs. Om Prakash and others

[AIR 2005 P & H 200]. He also relied upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government

of A.P. and others vs. Karri Chinna Venkata Reddy

and others [AIR 1994 SC 591] and the order dated

24.11.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.No.43447/2016 as

well as the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh

in the case of K. Neelamma vs. B. Suryanarayana

[C.R.P.No.2336/1989]. He further contended that the

application was clearly barred by principles of res judicata

in view of the orders passed by the Trial Court on

I.A.Nos.VIII and XIII. He further contended that if an

unregistered agreement dated 10.08.2009 was in

existence, then the defendants must have stated so by

issuing a reply to the notice issued by the plaintiff. Further,

he contended that mere admission of execution of the

unregistered agreement of sale dated 10.08.2009 by the

scribe, who drew up the registered agreement of sale

dated 10.08.2009, itself was not sufficient to allow the

unregistered agreement of sale to be marked as secondary

evidence.

16. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

defendants submitted that the plaintiff initially stonewalled

the production of the document and later, a notice was

issued calling upon him to produce the document. He

submitted that PW.3, a scribe of the registered agreement

of sale dated 10.08.2009 admitted the execution of

another sale agreement dated 10.08.2009 and this was

sufficient to prove the execution of the agreement. He

submitted that a photocopy of the agreement dated

10.08.2009 was handed over to the defendants, which was

duly signed by the plaintiff and therefore, the unregistered

agreement of sale was a duplicate of the original. He

submitted that since the plaintiff had purchased the suit

property under the unregistered agreement of sale dated

10.08.2009, it should be presumed that he was in

possession of the said document and therefore, he was

bound to produce the same. He contended that the

defendants have satisfied all the requirements under

Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence, the

impugned order passed by the Trial Court is just and

proper and does not warrant interference. In support of his

contention, he relied upon the order of a Coordinate Bench

of this Court in W.P.No.49570/2012 dated 09.01.2013 as

well as the order of another Coordinate Bench of this Court

in W.P.No.43737/2012 dated 03.12.2014. He further

relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Jagmail Singh and another vs. Karmajit

Singh and others [AIR 2020 SC 2319].

17. I have considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as the learned

counsel for the defendants.

18. When the suit was filed for specific

performance, the plaintiff relied upon an agreement of sale

dated 10.08.2009, which was duly registered whereunder

the defendants had allegedly agreed to sell the suit

property for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and

had allegedly received a sum of Rs.4,90,000/-. The

plaintiff claimed that the defendants did not conclude the

transaction but were attempting to sell it to third party and

therefore, he filed a suit for specific performance. The

defendants contested the suit by filing written statement

wherein, they admitted that they had executed an

agreement of sale dated 10.08.2009, which was duly

registered but claimed that the plaintiff had suppressed the

execution of another agreement on the same day, which

was not registered, whereunder, the plaintiff had agreed to

purchase the suit property for a total sale consideration of

Rs.17,90,000/-. They also admitted that a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- was received under the two agreements and

the balance payable was Rs.12,90,000/-. They claimed

that the market value of the suit property was more than

Rs.17,90,000/- as on the date of the filing of the written

statement. In order to amplify the pleadings made in the

written statement, the defendants amended the written

statement and inserted paragraph No.10(A) whereby they

claimed that the original of the unregistered agreement of

sale dated 10.08.2009 was with the plaintiff and a

photocopy of it, duly signed by the plaintiff was handed

over to the defendants.

19. The defendants were permitted to produce

unregistered agreement of sale dated 10.08.2009 by the

Trial Court in terms of the order dated 13.01.2016. Later,

an application (I.A.No.VIII) was filed by the defendants

under Order VI Rule 11 of CPC alleging that the original

unregistered agreement of sale dated 10.08.2009 was with

the plaintiff and therefore, sought for a direction to the

plaintiff to produce the original. This application was

rejected by the Trial Court in terms of the order dated

11.02.2016. This order was not challenged by the

defendants. Thereafter, a notice was caused to the

plaintiff under Order XII Rule 8 of CPC to produce the

original agreement of sale dated 10.08.2009 which too,

was rejected in terms of the order dated 09.01.2019. This

therefore, shows that the defendants did everything

possible to secure the original of the agreement of sale

dated 10.08.2009. The plaintiff persistently denied the

execution of the unregistered agreement of sale dated

10.08.2009 and claimed that he was not in possession of

the said document. The unregistered agreement of sale

dated 10.08.2009, which is produced before the Court

shows that the said document contained the real signature

of the plaintiff and defendants and therefore, could be

treated as a duplicate of the original agreement of sale

dated 10.08.2009. The evidence of PW.3 which is placed

on record shows that he was the scribe of the agreement

of sale dated 10.08.2009 that was duly registered. In his

cross-examination, he deposed as follows:-

"¸ÁQëUÉ MAzÀÄ PÀgÁj£À eÉgÁPïì vÉÆÃj¹ CzÀgÀ°è ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¸À»UÀ¼À ¤Ã° ±Á¬ÄAiÀÄ°è EªÉ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQë ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¸À»UÀ¼ÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ¸À»UÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÀÛªÉ JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÁÝgÉ.

¸ÀzÀj PÀgÁj£À eÉgÁPïì ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¸À» ¸ÀºÁ PÁtÄwÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀÄlzÀ »A¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀiÁzsÀªÀ JA§ ¹Ã¯ï ¸ÀºÁ PÁtÄwÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤¦-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F ªÉÄÃ¯É vÉÆÃj¹zÀ PÀgÁj£À eÉgÁPïì ¥Àæw CVæªÉÄAmï£À ªÀÄÆ® ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV CVæªÉÄAmï §gÉ¹PÉÆAqÀªÀgÀ §½ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. ¸ÀzÀj PÀgÁj£À eÉgÁPïì ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À«Ã£ÀZÀAzÀæ ElÄÖ PÉÆArgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¢: 10-08-2009 gÀAzÀÄ ¤¦-1 zÁR¯É £ÉÆAzÀtÂAiÀiÁzÀ ¢£ÀªÉÃ gÀÆ.17,90,000/- gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ½UÉ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£É vÀAiÀiÁj¹zÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. 2 £ÉÃ PÀgÁgÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁj¸ÀÄªÁUÀ ¸ÀºÁ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ EzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀuÁ ¥ÀvÀæ vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄªÀ ¥ÀÆªÀðzÀ°è £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr®è.

¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV ¤dªÁzÀ ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzsÀtÂAiÀiÁzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À°è vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄªÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.

zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄÄ ºÉÆÃ¼É£ÀgÀ¹¥ÀÄgÀ¢AzÀ ºÁ¸À£ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀ ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è §¸ï ¸ÁÖAqï ¤AzÀ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 300 «ÄÃlgï zÀÆgÀzÀ°èzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. 2009 gÀ°è zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄÄ ªÁtÂdå ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀAvÀªÀÅUÀ¼ÁVzÀÝªÀÅ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. 2009 gÀ°è zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 15 jAzÀ 20 ®PÀë ¨É¯É ¨Á¼ÀÄªÀ D¹ÛAiÀiÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄvÁÛgÉ."

20. Under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act,

secondary evidence may be given of the existence,

condition or contents, when the original is shown to be in

the possession or power of the person against whom the

document is sought to be proved, which in the present

case is the plaintiff. It can similarly be allowed when the

original has been destroyed or lost or when the party

offering it cannot produce it. Secondary evidence can be

allowed only when the rules prescribed under Section 66 of

the Indian Evidence Act is complied with. It is therefore,

mandatory in cases where the original is shown to be in

the custody or possession or power of the person against

whom the document is sought to be proved, then the

secondary evidence shall not be permitted unless notice to

produce it as prescribed in law is issued. The notice can

be dispensed by the Court when from the nature of the

case and when the party against whom it is to be pressed

into service, knew that he would be required to produce it.

21. In the present case, in view of the evidence of

PW.3, the execution of the document is established to a

certain extent. PW.2, who was the witness to the

registered agreement of sale deposed in his cross-

examination as follows:

"zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃdÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £À«Ã£ïZÀAzÀæ EªÀgÀÄ ¨ÁåAQ¤AzÀ vÀA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. AiÀiÁgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃdÄ ¥ÀvÀæ vÀAzÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¸ÁQëUÉ ¢: 10/8/09 gÀ JgÀqÀ£ÉÃ PÀgÁj£À eÉgÁPïì ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ CzÉÃ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß vÀA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj JgÀqÀ£ÉÃ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁzsÀªÀgÀªÀgÉÃ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÁQëUÉ JgÀqÀ£ÉÃ PÀgÁj£À ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹ PÀæAiÀÄzÀ ªÀiË®å gÀÆ.17,90,000-00 JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ PÀæAiÀÄzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ LzÀÄ ®PÀëPÉÌ DVvÀÄÛ. EzÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ DVzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄvÁÛgÉ."

22. Therefore, it is probable that the unregistered

agreement of sale dated 10.08.2009 was executed and

since the plaintiff was the purchaser under the said

document, it is quite natural that he would be in

possession of the said document. The fact that the

photocopy of the unregistered agreement of sale dated

10.08.2009 contained the signatures of the plaintiff and

defendants in original, makes it more than probable that

the document was in existence and if it was in the

possession of the defendants, they would have certainly

produced it as it was their defence that the suit property

was agreed to be sold not at a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- but at