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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
@ 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
