Bangalore District Court
N.Balakrishna Naidu vs In 1. C.Ramu on 14 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016
-: PRESENT: -
SRI.M.G.KUDAVAKKALIGER, B,Com., LL.M.,
XXX Addl.City Civil Judge,
Bangalore.
O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014
PLAINTIFF N.Balakrishna Naidu,
S/o Rama Naidu,
No.12-17, Balakrishna
Residency, 19th Cross,
24th Main, 5th Phase,
JP.Nagar, Bengaluru-78.
(By Pleader Sri.B.Girigowda,,
Adv.)
-VS-
DEFENDANTS IN 1. C.Ramu.
O.S.NO.987/2015 & S/o Late Chnnaswamy
JUDGMENT DEBTORS Goundar.
IN EX.P.NO.2950/2014 Since dead by Lrs. D.2 &
D3.
2. Smt.Kasturi,
W/o C.Ramu,
Aged about 68 years.
3. R.Nagaraj,
S/o C.Ramu,
Aged about 40 years.
All are at No.236, Pipeline
2 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014.
Road, Marbagh Layout,
Sarabandepalya,
Banashankari,
Bengaluru-78.
DEFENDANT IN 4. Sri.K.Tulasirama Naidu.
O.S.NO.987/2015 & S/o Narasimhalu Naidu,
DECREE HOLDER IN Aged about 49 years,
IN EX.P.NO.2950/2014 No.14-1251, Kavery Cross,
Ramanagar Colony, Chittoor
Town & District, Andhra
Pradesh.
(By Pleader Sri.Janardhana.
G.Adv.for D.2 & D.3,
Sri.M.R.Muniraju, Adv.for
D.4)
DATE OF INSTITUTION 30-01-2015
NATURE OF THE SUIT (Suit on Suit for specific
Pronote, Suit for declaration and performance of
Possession, Suit for injunction, etc.) contract.
DATE OF THE COMMENCEMENT
OF RECORDING OF THE EVIDENCE NIL.
DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGEMENT
WAS PRONOUNCED 14-09-2016
TOTAL DURATION : YEAR/S MONTH/S DAY/S
1 7 14
(M.G.KUDAVAKKALIGER),
XXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
3 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014.
JUDGMENT
ON ADMISSIONS ON THE MEMO DTD.23-1-2015 BY DEFENDANTS NO.2 & 3 & 25-1-2016 FILED BY DEFENDANTS NO.4 IN O.S.NO.987/2015
1. The facts of O.S.No.987/2015:-
The plaintiff has filed this suit for specific performance of agreement dtd.3-5-2014 by receiving balance sale consideration and prays for a direction to the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. In case, defendants failed to execute the sale deed prays to appoint a Court Commissioner through which sale deed is to be executed. And alternative relief of refund of advance received from the plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of receipt of advance amount periodically till the realization and for damages of Rs.10 Crores with consequential relief of permanent injunction and costs.
2. Following are the brief and relevant facts leading to the case of the plaintiff:
The suit schedule property converted land bearing Sy.No.57 of Jaraganahalli Village, measuring 1.22½ guntas 4 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. (actual measurement available 1.15½ guntas) is the self acquired property of C.Ramu defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 executed GPA in favour of his wife Smt.Kasturi defendant No.2, their son R.Nagaraj defendant No.3, are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.2 has entered into an agreement to sell the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.4 by name K.Tulasiram Naidu under the registered sale agreement dtd.9-10-2013 for a total sale consideration of Rs.9,28,00,000/-. As per the agreement, vendor has to arrange all necessary title documents of the suit schedule property in order to convey marketable title to defendant No.4 within the agreed period apart from getting the land converted from agricultural to non-agricultural for residential purpose. Thereafter, owners of the suit schedule property defendants 1 to 3 and defendant no.4, the agreement holder jointly approached the plaintiff and requested and offered to sell the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has agreed and accepted the offer of the 5 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. defendants and consented to purchase the suit schedule property for Rs.4,600/- per sq.ft. and agreed to pay sale consideration at this rate for the actual available measurement after getting the land converted by arranging the necessary title documents. Thereafter, a Joint Memorandum of Understanding dtd.12-11-2013 has been executed in favour of the plaintiff and received Rs.1,00,00,000/- through two cheques. Further, the defendants have received Rs.1,15,00,000/- through four cheques towards balance sale consideration amount and have entered into a Sale Agreement on 3-5-2014 with the plaintiff in furtherance of the memorandum of understanding. The defendants have also received Rs.3,52,00,000/- through cheques towards balance sale consideration. Thus, the plaintiff has paid substantial sale consideration amount to the defendants. The defendants after receiving the copy of the conversion order from the D.C.Office which is done at the cost and expenses of the plaintiff avoided to meet the plaintiff and to execute the 6 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the memorandum of understanding dtd.12-11-2013 and Sale Agreement dtd.3-5-2014. Therefore, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dtd.12-1-2015 calling upon the defendants to execute the Registered Sale Deed after receipt of balance sale consideration amount. The notice sent to defendant No.4 duly served, notice sent to defendants 1 to 3 returned unserved with shara "parties left". Thereafter, the defendants have failed to receive the balance sale consideration amount and to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff and failed to perform their part of contract. Hence, plaintiff has filed this suit and prayed to decree the suit.
Defendant No.4 has filed the suit in O.S.No.6382/2014 against defendants 1 and 2 for the relief of specific performance of the alleged Sale Agreement dtd.9-10-2013 suppressing the fact of executing the memorandum of understanding dtd.12-11- 2013as well as Sale Agreement dtd.3-5-2014 in favour of 7 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. the plaintiff. The defendants subsequently compromised the said suit by colluding with each other to deceive the plaintiff's right of specific performance and are hurry to execute the Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.4. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit for specific performance of contract dtd.3-5-2014 directing the defendants to execute the Sale Deed in his favour, alternatively directing the defendants to repay the advance amount with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of receipt of the advance amount periodically till the realization along with damages of Rs.10,00,00,000/-.
3. After registration of the suit, suit summons was issued to the defendants. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants have put appearance through their advocate and defendant No.2 filed his written statement contending inter-alia that she has admitted the plaint paras 1 to 3. The defendant has also admitted that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the property and he has executed the agreement in favour of defendant No.4 and she has joined the 8 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. defendant No.1 as a signatory in that agreement. This defendant has no manner of right in the property in question. This defendant denies that she has offered to sell the property in question to the plaintiff for Rs.4,600/- per sq.ft. The alleged MOU is untenable in law and is therefore of no consequence. In the absence of the details or particulars of the alleged certain payments through cheques appears to be a deliberate suppression. This defendant has admitted that the property in question was converted for non-agricultural use, but denied that the cost and expenses of conversion is met by the plaintiff. There was no occasion for the plaintiff to bear these costs and expenses. This defendant has denied the issuance of legal notice by the plaintiff, however, no such notice is received by this defendant. She has admitted that the suit in O.S.No.6382/2014 is filed by defendant no.4 against the 1st defendant for a specific performance of Sale Agreement dtd.9-10-2013 and she was also impleaded as a party in that suit. This defendant has 9 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. denied that there is collusion amongst the defendants and also denied that the plaintiff has invested money for arranging for the title documents. This defendant averred that the 1st defendant who is the absolute owner of the property in question is not a party to the alleged MOU dtd.12-11-2013 and Sale Agreement dtd.3-5-2014 and defendants 2 & 3 who are shown as parties in those documents have no subsisting right or interest in the property in question. Defendant No.4 is only an agreement holder from the 1st defendant and he has a decree in his favour for specific performance as against defendant No.1. The decree by itself does not confer upon the 4th defendant any right over the property in question. Hence, both the documents are not enforceable in law. The documents do not create any manner of right or interest in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the property in question. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit against this defendant.
10 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014.
4. The defendant no.4 has adopted the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant.
5. The defendant No.4 has also filed his written statement contenting inter-alia that the GPA executed by defendant in favour of his wife 2nd defendant is not tenable. He has admitted that the agreement dtd.9-10-2013 has been executed by defendant No.1 in his favour and 2nd defendant has merely joined the 1st defendant in the execution of the said agreement. Defendant No.4 denied that he was unable to get the land converted and unable to arrange the balance sale consideration amount, along with other defendants approached the plaintiff and requested him to purchase the suit schedule property and requested the plaintiff to arrange for revenue documents and also for seeking conversion of the land. This defendant denied the defendants have jointly executed the MOU in favour of the plaintiff and said MOU is untenable in law. He has denied the receipt of payment as detailed in para-4 & 5 of the plaint. The averments in para-6 of the plaint that 11 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. plaintiff moved the conversion file to get the suit property converted before the Revenue Authorities is a blatant lie. Since this defendant has already entered into a Sale Agreement dtd.9-10-2013 with respect to the suit schedule property, it is this defendant who was insisting upon the defendants 1 and 2 to approach the revenue authorities seeking conversion of the land in question and conversion order is also granted in favour of defendant No.1. The suit is not maintainable. This defendant admits the compromise decree in O.S.No.6382/2014 between himself and defendants 1 and 2. The alleged GPA executed in favour of 2nd defendant does not authorize her to enter into any MOU or any Sale Agreement with respect to the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of any one. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit. However, this defendant no.4 is ready to refund the amount of Rs.1,70,00,000/- to the plaintiff on such terms as the Hon'ble Court may direct and plaintiff is not entitled to 12 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. claim interest at the rate of 18% p.a. There is no legal basis for claiming damages of Rs.10 crores by the plaintiff. Hence, defendant No.4 prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
The facts of Ex.Petition No.2950/2014:-
6. Decree holder K.Tulasiram Naidu has filed this Execution petition against the judgment debtor No.1 C.Ramu, judgment debtor No.2 Smt.Kasturi on the basis of the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.6382/2014 dtd.9-9- 2014. O.S.No.6382/2014 has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 and 2 praying for decree for specific performance against the defendant directing the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property at the cost of the plaintiff forthwith, failing which plaintiff may be empowered to get the same done through process of this Hon'ble Court as performance of contract as per the agreement dtd.9-10- 2013 and also deliver the physical possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. On the basis of the 13 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. joint compromise petition dtd.9-9-2013, suit came to be decreed in terms of the compromise petition. On the basis of which, decree holder has filed this execution petition. Thereafter, when the draft sale deed was produced before this Court, the objector i.e. the present plaintiff in O.S.No.987/2015 has filed third party application under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 and 101 of C.P.C. and prays to determine the right of the objector and dismiss the execution petition by passing appropriate order in favour of the objector. Along with the application, the plaintiff/objector has sworn to the affidavit deposing that the judgment debtor being the owner of the converted landed property bearing Sy.No.57 measuring 1 acre 22½ guntas actual available measurement is 1 acre 15½ guntas of Jaraganahalli Village have entered into agreement of sale in favour of decree holder on 9-10- 2013, subsequently, the decree holder and judgment debtor have jointly executed a Memorandum of Understanding dtd.12-11-2013 agreeing to sell the suit 14 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. schedule property in favour of the plaintiff/objector at the rate of Rs.4500/- per sq.ft. Following the said Memorandum of Understanding both decree holder and judgment debtor have jointly executed agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff/objector on 3-5-2014 and received the part sale consideration amount from the plaintiff. The plaintiff/objector has deposed that at the instance of the plaintiff/objector the said property got converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose with an understanding that judgment debtor and decree holder (defendants 1 to 4) will execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/objector. But, the judgment debtor and decree holder (defendants) failed to execute the sale deed and evaded to execute the sale deed by showing one to another. Mean time, the objector (plaintiff) learnt that judgment debtor has filed O.S.No.6382/2014 for specific performance of sale agreement dtd.9-10-2013 suppressing the MOU executed in favour of plaintiff/objector. Judgment debtor and decree holder have colluded 15 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. together and got the suit compromised behind the back of the plaintiff/objector by filing application under Order 23 Rule 3. Hence, either decree holder or judgment debtor has no right to execute the collusive decree obtained in O.S.No.6382/2014. Hence, the objector/plaintiff has filed this application to contest the said Ex.Petition as objector. Mean while, the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.987/2015 to enforce the MOU and the agreement executed by the judgment debtor and decree holder in favour of the plaintiff. The decree holder and the Judgment debtor have filed initial objections to the application of the objector and prayed to dismiss the same.
7. As the suit schedule property and both the litigating parties are one and the same, this execution petition and O.S.No.987/2015 have been clubbed.
8. During the pendency of the trial, defendant No.1 Sri.C.Ramu died, defendant No.2 and 3 being the only legal 16 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. representatives of the defendant No.1 on record, cause title has been amended on 3-2-2016.
9. On the basis of the rival contentions taken up by the respective parties, following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants have jointly executed MOU in favour of plaintiff and have received Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the plaintiff through two cheques bearing Nos.678331 and678332 for Rs.50 lakhs each dtd.12-11-2013 as contended in para-4 of the plaint?
2. Whether plaintiff further proves that defendants have entered into a Sale Agreement dtd.3-5-2014 with the plaintiff in furtherance of the MOU as contended in para-6 of the plaint?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant has received Rs.10,00,000/-from the plaintiff through cheque bearing No.721149 dtd.3-5-2014 and further sum of Rs.10,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.721150 dtd.7-5-2014 and in addition to that, the defendant No.4 has received Rs.1,50,00,000/- from the plaintiff through cheque bearing No.688514 dtd.26-12-2013 and Rs.1,70,00,000/- from the plaintiff through cheque bearing No.731752 dtd.5-5-
2014 as contended in para-7 of the plaint?
4. Whether plaintiff further proves that he has paid Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- 17 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. through cheques in favour of defendant No.2 towards the balance sale consideration amount as alleged in para-7 of the plaint?
5. Whether 2nd defendant proves that the GPA is of no avail in so far as the claim made by the plaintiff as alleged in para-2 of the written statement?
6. Whether 2nd defendant further proves that the alleged MOU is untenable in law as alleged in para-11 of the written statement?
7. Whether 2nd defendant further proves that the Sale Agreement dtd.3-5-2014 is untenable in law as alleged in para-14 of the written statement?
8. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that he is ready to refund the amount of Rs.1,70,00,000/- received from the plaintiff on such terms as this Court directs as alleged in para-32 of the written statement?
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for?
10. What order or decree?
10. The case has been posted for recording evidence of the plaintiff. At this stage, the learned JG, Advocate for defendants 2 & 3 has filed memo on 23-1-2016 accepting the claim of the plaintiff for specific performance of the 18 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. agreement of sale dtd.3-5-2014 against them and defendant No.4. The defendants have expressed their readiness to either return the alleged advance paid to them under the said agreement or to execute the sale deed in the name of the plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration. The learned MRM, Advocate for defendant No.4 has also filed memo on 25-1-2016 accepting the claim of the plaintiff against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property which is the subject matter in O.S.No.6382/2014 and EP.2950/2014. This defendant No.4 agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff along with defendants 2 and 3 by receiving balance sale consideration to put an end to this long drawn litigation. The defendants pleased this Court to call upon the plaintiff to accept the said proposal and get the matter decided accordingly. Thereafter, the learned counsel for plaintiff filed objections to the memo. Heard the arguments on both side and perused the materials 19 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. placed on record. Now the case has been posted for orders on memo and judgment on admissions.
11. Now the points that would arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether it is a fit case to pass judgment on admission?
2. What order?
12. On the basis of the materials placed on record, my answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the affirmative.
Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
13. POINT NO.1: At this stage, let me note some admitted facts on record. It is the admitted fact of both parties that defendant No.1 C.Ramu is the original owner of the suit schedule property converted land bearing Sy.No.57 of Jaraganahalli Village measuring 1 acre 22½ guntas and actual available measurement of the said Sy.No. is 1 acre 15½ guntas, hence, it is the self acquired property of C.Ramu. Defendant No.2 Smt.Kasturi is the wife of C.Ramu who is the GPA holder of defendant No.1, defendant No.3 20 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. R.Nagaraj is the son of the defendant No.1 and 2. defendant No.4 K.Tulsiram Naidu is the agreement holder of the registered sale agreement dtd.9-10-2013 executed by the defendant No.2 on the basis of the power of attorney with regard to the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.9,28,00,000/-. The defendant No.4 K.Tulasiram Naidu has filed O.S.No.6382/2014 for a specific performance against the defendant No.1 C.Ramu and defendant No.2 Smt.Kasturi. On the basis of joint compromise petition dtd.9-9-2014, the said O.S.No.6382/2014 came to be decreed, on the basis of which defendant No.4 K.Tulasiram Naidu being the decree holder has filed EP.No.2950/2014 against the defendant No.1 and 2 being the judgment debtors. When draft sale deed has been furnished to the Court with regard to the suit schedule property, this plaintiff in O.S.No.987/2015 has filed objector application under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 & 101 of C.P.C. and plaintiff/objector has filed this present suit for specific performance of agreement 21 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. against the decree holder and judgment debtors of EP.No.2950/2014 arraying R.Nagaraj the son of C.Ramu and Kasturi as defendant No.3 on the ground that defendant Nos.1 to 3 the owners of the suit schedule property and defendant No.4 Tulsiram Naidu the previous agreement holder have jointly executed the Memorandum of Understanding in favour of plaintiff/objector on 12-11- 2013 agreed to sell the suit schedule property at the rate of Rs.4600/- per sq.ft. and they have also executed the agreement of sale dtd.3-5-2014 with respect of suit schedule property by receiving substantial sale consideration amount from the plaintiff/objector. During the course of the proceedings, defendant No.1 died, defendants 2 and 3 being the only LRs. on record, case was proceeded by amending the cause title. Initially, defendant Nos.2 to 4 being the judgment debtors, decree holders have filed their objection to the objector application filed by the present plaintiff and filed their respective written statement to the plaint filed by the plaintiff. Hence, my 22 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. predecessor has framed the above issues. With the background of these material facts and issues, heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
14. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that there is a cloud on the title of the suit schedule property and defendant has undertaken to clear the dispute with regard to the suit schedule property. The defendants have to execute the final sale deed of the suit schedule property free from all encumbrances. The suit schedule property is the subject matter of O.S.No.3978/1996 which was decreed, against which RFA.No.1133/2010 was preferred and is still pending. Hence, title of the suit schedule property is not clear and there is no marketable title with the defendant Nos.2 & 3. The title of the defendants 2 and 3 is subject to the result of RFA. Hence, on the memo no order is to be passed and prays to dismiss the memo and parties are directed to go on with the case. Otherwise, plaintiff prays to direct the defendants to 23 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. return the advance money with damages sought for in the plaint. On the contrary, counsels for the defendants 2 & 3 have argued that they have admitted the entire transaction between the plaintiff and defendants and also defendants interse. Hence, defendants admitted the execution of the sale agreement dtd.3-5-2014 and Memorandum of Understanding dtd.12-11-2013 with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed this suit for specific performance of the agreement dtd.3-5-2014 by receiving balance sale consideration amount, in the alternative, prays to issue direction to the defendants to repay the advance sale consideration amount along with the interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of receipt of advance amount till the realization with damages of Rs.10 crores. The scope of the suit is very limited, at this stage the plaintiff cannot raise any issue with regard to the marketable title and about the cloud on the title of the defendants over the suit schedule property. Defendants 2 and 3 are not the party to the suit in O.S.No.3978/1996 24 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. and RFA No.1133/2010. No where in the plaint, plaintiff has made any averments with regard to the pending of RFA No.1133/2010 and marketable title. The scope of the suit is very limited and prayer No.(a) is with regard to the specific performance of the agreement and prayer No.(c) is with regard to the refund of earnest money with interest. By filing memo, defendants have agreed to execute the final sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration amount and in the alternative they have also agreed to refund the earnest money. The plaintiff cannot claim marketable title at this stage. As per Sec.54 & 55 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 it is the duty of the plaintiff to check the status and ownership of the defendants over the suit schedule property at the time of entering into the agreement itself. Now, at this stage the Court cannot be called upon to enquire about the marketable title and plaintiff cannot insist the Court to order for marketable title.
25 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014.
15. Sec.20 of the Specific Relief Act, clearly provides discretion as to decreeing the specific performance. Sec.17 provides the provision under which specific performance can not be enforceable and on that ground alone the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has pleaded in his plaint para No.8 that defendant has received the copy of the conversion order from the D.C.Office which is done at the cost and expenses of the plaintiff. Thereafter, defendants avoided to meet the plaintiff to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property in terms of the MOU dtd.12-11-2013 and sale agreement dtd.3-5-2014 and defendants are reluctant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants after receipt of the conversion order not came forward to execute the registered sale deed. Therefore, plaintiff got issued legal notice calling upon the defendants to execute the registered sale deed on receipt of the balance sale consideration amount and the plaintiff has 26 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. expressed his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and further contended that even after the issuance of legal notice, defendants have failed to receive the balance sale consideration amount and to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and thereby they have failed to perform their part of contract. The plaintiff in his plaint para No.10 has submitted that defendants have colluded together and trying to alienate the suit schedule property to third party for a higher sale consideration amount depriving the plaintiff's right. Hence, he has filed this suit for the relief of specific performance. The plaintiff has invested lot of money on the defendants under the MOU as well as sale agreement by paying sale consideration amount officially and spent much money off the records in arranging the title documents of the suit schedule property and getting the land converted. The plaintiff submits that defendants cannot be permitted to enrich themselves at the cost, sweat and effort of the plaintiff by selling the suit 27 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. schedule property to the third party for a higher sale consideration, in which event the plaintiff will be put to untold misery and hardship which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The plaintiff further submits that if the said money was invested in any other alternative land same would fetch higher profits to the plaintiff. Therefore the suit schedule property and the transaction of the plaintiff with the defendants is very valuable. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit for specific performance as well as permanent injunction. Under these circumstances, the defendants 2 to 4 by filing memo have expressed their readiness and willingness to execute the final sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration and they have also expressed their readiness to deposit the earnest money received in case plaintiff does not wish to get the sale deed registered by paying the balance sale consideration amount. Hence, the defendants are ready to comply the prayer (a) or (c) of the plaint. Hence, prayed to 28 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. pass judgment on admission as per Order XII Rule 6 of C.P.C. which runs as under:
O.XII R.6. of C.P.C.:- Judgment on admissions.-
(1) where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit having regard to such admissions.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-
rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
As amended in Karnataka.
Or.12, R.6(2) the Court may also of its own motion make such order or give such judgment as it may consider just, having regard to the admissions made by the parties.
6(3) whenever an order or judgment is pronounced under the provisions of this rule, a decree may be drawn up in accordance with such order or judgment bearing the same date as the date on which the order or judgment was pronounced.
16. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the above case in the light of the provisions of Order XII, Rule 6 of C.P.C. and Karnataka Amendment, it is clear that the object of this provision is to enable the parties to obtain speedy judgments. Defendants 2 to 4 have filed memo, admitted the claim of the plaintiff and consented to decree the suit 29 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. by awarding main prayer (a) for specific performance of the suit agreement or alternative prayer (c) for return of earnest money. Therefore, their left nothing to be tried, the suit can be decreed on the basis of the admissions made by the defendants. Therefore, the provisions of Order 12, Rule 6 to pass decree on admission are similar to the power of the Court in Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. This provision permits the passing of judgment at any stage without determining the other questions. In the instant case, admission referred in the memo is the clear and absolute admission capable of being work out and sufficient to pass the decree on the strength of the admission. Therefore, the admission made by the defendants in regard to the claim of the plaintiff leading the Court to pass judgment on admission. Their Lordship of the Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the silent features of Order XII Rule 6 in the case of Uttam Singh Dughal Company Ltd. Vs. United Bank of India1, which runs as under:
1 2000(7) SCC 120 = AIR 2000 SC 2740 30 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. "In the objects and Reasons set out while amending Rule 6 of Order XII, C.P.C., it is stated that 'where a claim is admitted, the Court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled.' The Supreme Court should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where the other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed."
17. In view of my above discussions and the reasons stated therein, in the light of the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 and the principles evolved by their Lordship of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to pass judgment on admission and decree the suit. Hence, I have not considered all the issues framed by my learned predecessor on the basis of the rival contentions taken up by the respective parties in their respective pleadings. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
18. During the course of the arguments, the plaintiff has argued and pressed to award damages of Rs.10 crores as prayed in the suit and interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on 31 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. the advance sale consideration. The defendants 2 to 4 have also argued that they are ready to execute the final sale deed on receipt of the balance sale consideration amount, in the alternative they have also expressed their readiness and willingness to refund the entire earnest money. When such being the case, the question of defendants paying damages of Rs.10 Crores to the plaintiff would not arise at all. The defendants further argued that plaintiff is not permitted to approbate or reprobate at a time. Looking to the entire materials before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is not justified in seeking for damages.
19. In the instant case, the plaintiff has claimed 18% interest on the refund of the earnest money, which is at higher side. Under the Interest Act, the party is entitled for interest at the 'current rate of interest' which expression is defined in Clause(b) of Sec.2 of the Interest Act, meaning thereby, the highest of the maximum rates at which interest may be paid on different classes of 32 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. deposits by different classes of schedule banks in accordance with the direction given or issued to the banking companies generally by the Reserve Bank of India under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Therefore, if defendants are directed to pay the simple interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the earnest money of Rs.6,17,00,000/- (as narrated in the plaint para Nos.5 & 7) from the date of suit till realization of the entire suit claim awarded as alternative relief in case plaintiff does not wish to get the sale deed executed as per the terms of the agreement, it would meet the ends of justice. Hence, this court is of the opinion that plaintiff is entitled for interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on earnest money on record Rs.6,17,00,000/- from the date of suit till realization.
20. POINT NO.2: In view of my above discussions and the reasons stated therein and the admission given by the defendants 2 to 4 in their memo, third party application filed by the present plaintiff in Ex.P.No.2950/2014 33 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014. deserves to be allowed and suit deserves to be decreed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
The objector's application filed by the plaintiff under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 & 101 of C.P.C. in Ex.P.No.2950/2014 is also allowed.
The plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of sale agreement dtd.3-5- 2014 as prayed in the suit and objector application.
Defendants 2 to 4 are hereby
directed to execute the registered sale
deed on receipt of the balance sale
consideration within two months from the date of decree. In case of default by the defendants to execute the final sale deed, plaintiff is at liberty to get the sale deed executed by appointing Court Commissioner at the cost of the defendants.
34 O.S.NO.987/2015 C/W Ex.P.No.2950/2014.
In case plaintiff does not wish to get the sale deed registered, he is at liberty to get refund of earnest money with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of agreement till the repayment of the entire earnest money.
Draw decree accordingly.
Keep copy of this judgment in
Ex.P.No.2950/2014.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016).
(M.G.KUDAVAKKALIGER), XXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.