Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The second defendant filed written statement on behalf of the first defendant denying the. plaint allegations. While admitting the execution of the agreement, receipt of advance amount and various terms of agreement of sale, the second defendant stated as follows. As per the agreement of sale, execution of sale deed could be postponed but the balance of sale consideration must be paid by the vendee before the time stipulated. The plaintiffs have not honoured the said condition. The trustees passed resolution empowering the second defendant to deal with the property of the Trust and a copy of the resolution was handed over to the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 1 got draft sale deed prepared, tracing the history of the land showing the title and names of the purchasers on the terms and conditions of the sale deed which was submitted to ULC authorities. After due negotiations, said agreement was prepared. Therefore, the question of enquiry about the validity and the legality of the sale or the authority of the Trust to convey the title to the plaintiffs does not arise. Similarly, obtaining sanction from the Endowments Department does not arise, as the office of the Trust was located in Calcutta in West Bengal. The rules under West Bengal law alone are applicable and permission of endowment authority in Andhra Pradesh is not required. The first defendant denied the allegation that the Trust did not produce title deeds pertaining to the property and it is further stated that all the documents were given sufficiently in advance and a draft sale deed was also prepared after satisfying about the title of the Trust. In any event as per terms of the agreement any permission is required, the same has to be obtained by the plaintiffs only. The plaintiffs who got prepared the sale deed committed breach of terms of contract by not paying valid sale consideration before the time stipulated. It is further stated that plaintiffs did not take any action for finalizing sale and that the plaintiffs made unreasonable demands ignoring terms of the agreement. It is also alleged that if the registration of the Trust in Andhra Pradesh is required, the suit agreement is void and no specific performance can be enforced against defendants. The plaintiffs entered into an agreement after satisfying themselves about the title of the first defendant and also fully aware of revocation of the previous agreement and therefore they cannot go back on the terms of the agreement in spite of making time as essence of the contract. The plaintiffs were not willing and ready to abide by terms stipulated in the agreement and plaintiffs cannot substitute any terms or add new terms to the suit agreement. The suit agreement is void and unenforceable under the provisions of Sections 46, 47 and 48 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 read with Section 11(2) of the Specific Relief Act.

11. Sri Vilas V. Afzul Purkar, the learned Counsel for appellants in C.C.C.A. No. 88 of 1993 and respondents in A.S. No. 673 of 1995 argued as follows. Under Section 55(1)(b) and (c) read with Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a seller is bound to disclose all the relevant information and produce all documents of title relating to the property and the vendee is entitled to seek clarification regarding reasonable doubts about the title of the property agreed to be sold. The plaintiffs were not given the relevant documents of title in respect of the entire suit schedule property and therefore when the plaintiffs asked for those documents, it is the second defendant who did not co-operate with the plaintiffs with a view to avoid the contract. The defendants themselves committed breach and therefore the plaintiffs cannot be said to have resiled from the contract. The plaintiffs are always ready and willing to perform the contract and they have even sent a xerox copy of the cheque for Rs. 5,00,000/- 'good for payment' before the stipulated date, which the defendants refused to accept the same with a view to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs. When other persons approached offering higher price to the suit schedule land, defendant No. 2 avoided the queries made by the plaintiffs and refused to furnish the documents requested by the plaintiffs. Unless and until the defendants satisfied that they had title to alienate the property, defendants are under no obligation to part with balance of sale consideration. In view of Ex.A.32, which is resolution of all other trustees authorizing the sale of the suit schedule property by defendant No. 2 to the plaintiffs and by reason of Sections 47 and 48 of Indian Trusts Act, 1882, Ex.A.1 is not rendered void. The learned Counsel placed reliance on Madurai Chetty v. Babu Saheb, AIR 1920 Mad. 859 : (1919) 52 1C 971 and Subbayya Chowdary v. Veerayya, 1955 An.WR 502.

12. In his reply arguments, the learned Senior Counsel for defendants submits that even according to the plaintiffs Ex.A.1 was not signed by all the trustees and that the permission of the Commissioner under Endowments Act was not obtained and therefore the agreement is unenforceable as it is void. Sections 47 and 48 of the Indian Trusts Act require the execution of trusts by all the trustees and therefore Ex.A.1 cannot be enforced. That plaintiffs never asked for title deeds for the purpose of certain clarification and that it is not correct by issuing Ex.A.4 notice what they asked for or the original documents and not for the title deeds. The plaintiffs did not at any time ask the second defendant for title deeds. The contention that the second defendant did not satisfy the plaintiffs on the clarifications sought is not correct. Whenever plaintiffs raised doubts, defendant No. 2 gave clarifications regarding the title of first defendant to the suit property, regarding the delegation made to second defendant by other trustees and regarding the applicability of West Bengal Endowment Law, under which no permission is required. If the plaintiffs are not satisfied with the clarifications given by second defendant, the latter cannot be blamed. Plaintiffs admitted the title of defendant No. 1 and capacity of defendants to sell the property and therefore Section 55(1) and 55(2) of Transfer of Property Act have no application.