Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant submitted that the defendants are the owners of land measuring about 10 acres and 42 cents in Sarkar Samakulam Village, Coimbatore District. The defendants 1 to 4 and 6, as owners, formed a layout titled Balaji Sakthi Gardens approved as No.54/86 with 114 plots plus 2 sites reserved for shops. Later, the lands were converted into an approved layout bearing No.LP/(CPN)54/1986 in the name of Jayanthi Gardens consisting of 114 sites and 4 reserved sites. According to the counsel for plaintiff, the defendants were able to sell only a few plots between 1986 and 2003 and they confronted difficulty in marketing and selling the plots. The defendants therefore entered into an agreement of sale on 02.10.2003 (Ex.A5) with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the plots for a sale consideration of Rs.13,000/- per cent. Pursuant to the agreement, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as advance. The Plaintiff was also put in possession of the suit property. As per the agreement, six months time was fixed for performance of the obligation by the plaintiff and the defendants and the sale deeds have to be executed either in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee within the said period. The plaintiff, after execution of the agreement, could sell 12 plots for which sale deeds have been executed by the defendants. Initially, seven sale deeds were executed by the defendants in the month of December 2003 and another five sale deeds were executed on 15.07.2004 marked as Exs. A8 to A12. Subsequently, the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deeds on the ground that that there was some problem in registering documents in the Sub-Registrar Office and they assured to execute the sale deeds after resolving the problem. As the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deeds in favour of the prospective purchasers identified by the plaintiff, he has issued a legal notice dated 04.10.2006, Ex.A6 calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed with regard to the site within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the notice. In the said notice, it has been clearly pointed out that whenever the appellant/ plaintiff approached the respondents to execute the sale deed, it was answered by the defendants that there is some problem in registering the document with the Sub-Registrar Office. On receipt of the legal notice dated 04.10.2006, the defendants, instead of complying with the demands made by the plaintiff, have sent a reply dated 19.10.2006, Ex.A7 stating that the defendants never informed the plaintiff that there was some problem in registering documents in the Sub-Registrar Office. It is further stated in the reply notice sent by the defendants that after registration of the seven sale deeds during December 2003, there was total abandonment and breach of the terms and conditions by the plaintiff and there was total silence on the part of the plaintiff in approaching the defendants to execute the sale deeds by paying the balance sale consideration. In the reply notice it has also been falsely stated that only after realising that the price of the land has gone up, the plaintiff has issued the legal notice dated 04.10.2006 under Ex.A6 calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed. Thus, the defendants, in their reply notice dated 19.10.2006 refused to comply with the demands made by the plaintiff by making false allegations. Since the defendants refused to execute the sale deeds in their reply notice dated 19.10.2006, as per the agreement dated 02.10.2003, Ex.A5, the plaintiff has filed the suit on 04.06.2007, within three years from the date of refusal by the defendants to perform their part of the contract. In this regard, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in (Ahmmadsahab Abdul Milla (dead) by proposed Lrs vs. Bibijan and others) reported in (2009) 5 SCC 462 to contend that the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant is maintainable as it was filed within the period stipulated under the Limitation Act. For the very same proposition, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Madina Begum and another vs. Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey and others) reported in 2016 SAR Civil 920 wherein it was held that in the absence of any specific date for performance of the agreement, non-compliance of the agreement on the date would give a cause of action to file a suit for specific performance within three years from the date so fixed. In this case, in the reply notice dated 19.10.2006, the defendants have refused to perform their part of the agreement. Further, in this case, no specific date was fixed for performance of the contract, hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant within three years from the date of refusal is maintainable under law.

14. Apart from the above submissions made on the basis of pleadings and evidence, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant made a detailed argument on the grounds of fraud said to have been committed by the defendants/ respondents. According to the counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, whenever the plaintiff/appellant approached the defendants/respondents herein to execute the sale deed in favour of the purchaser identified by him, it was represented that there is some problem in registering the document in the office of the Sub-Registrar and by saying so, they have evaded to execute the sale deed in favour of the purchaser identified by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff applied for layout plan approved by the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning vide approval No.54 of 1986 when the suit was pending trial under Right to Information Act. As per the plan, it consists of 114 sites and 4 reserved sites. But the plan which was given to the plaintiff at the time of execution of agreement of sale, Ex.A5 consists of 124 sites and two shops alone. Therefore, it is clear that the defendants/respondents herein have furnished a wrong sketch along with Ex.A5. On comparision of Ex.A23, the actual approved layout sketch along with plan annexed with Ex.A5, agreement of sale, the suppression of correct approved layout by the defendants would be apparent and glaring. This discrepancy, according to the counsel for the plaintiff, was the reason for the defendants postponing registration of the sale deeds after 15.07.2004, which the plaintiff was not aware. The plaintiff, without knowing the exact problem was approaching the defendants continuously for registration of the sale deeds. Whenever the plaintiff approached the defendants, it was represented that there was a problem in registering the document with the Sub-registrar without revealing the exact problem. In fact, when the plaintiff was cross-examined on 19.07.2010, there was a pointed question put to him by the defendants as to whether the plaintiff had written to the defendants to correct the problem in the layout plan. The Plaintiff answered that he did not write anything to the defendants to correct the problem in the layout plan. The discrepancy in the two plans, one supplied by the plaintiff along with Ex.A-5, agreement of sale and the other being Ex.A23 have been clearly brought out by the plaintiff at the time of cross-examination of DW1. DW1 also admitted in his evidence that the layout was sanctoined in 1986 and it contained 114 plots plus 2 shops sites, but in the plan annexed with Ex.A5, 124 plots and 2 shop sites have been shown. Therefore, it is clear that the defendants have deliberately supplied a different plan along with Ex.A5 which is different from Ex.A23. This conduct of the defendants in supplying a different plan is a conduct of blemish and on that ground, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/ appellant relied on the decision of the Apex Court in (Zarina Siddiqui vs. A. Ramalingam alias R. Amarnathan) reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 705 wherein it has been held that if the defendant does not come with clean hands and suppresses material facts and evidence and misleads the Court, then such discreton should not be exercised by refusing to grant specific performance. If a party to a lis does not disclose all material facts truly and fairly but states them in distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in order to prevent abuse of process of law. Thus, by placing reliance on the above decision, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant prayed for setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the court below.

21. Point No.1:- The plaintiff and the defendants have entered into an agreement of sale on 02.10.2003, which was marked as Ex.A5. As per Ex.A5, the defendants agreed to convey the suit schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff or a nominee of his choice for a sale price of Rs.13,000/- per cent. On the date of agreement of sale, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration. Further, under the agreement of sale, the period for completion of the sale transaction was fixed as six months. The period of six months commences from 02.10.2003 and ends on 01.04.2004. According to the plaintiff, at his request, the 5th and 6th defendants executed sale deeds either in his favour or in favour of his nominee in respect of the sites bearing Nos. 22, 23, 28, 46, 46-A, 63, 65-A, 66, 68-A, 71, 71-A, 72, 72-A, 73 and 74. Further, according to the plaintiff/ appellant, the last such sale deed was executed on 15.07.2004 i.e., after the expiry of six months period fixed under the agreement of sale. It is contended on behalf of plaintiff that thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff for execution of sale deed in his favour or a nominee of his choice, the defendants avoided and evaded to execute the sale deed on the ground that there was a problem in registering the document with the Sub-Registrar Office and assured to clear the said problem. The Plaintiff, without knowing the nature of problem, has waited for a considerable length of time. As the defendants did not come forward to perform their part of the contract, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 04.10.2006 and thereafter filed the suit.

22. According to the defendants, the defendants never represented to the plaintiff that there was a problem in registering the document. On the other hand, the plaintiff abandoned the contract and committed breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement after December 2003. On a perusal of evidence, we find that only in the legal notice dated 04.10.2006, Ex.A6, the plaintiff has stated as if the defendants represented to him that there was a problem in registering the sale deed before the office of the Sub-Registrar. Further, one of the conditions incorporated in the agreement of sale is that if there is no sale in a particular month, the plaintiff has to pay to the defendants an advance amount of Rs.7,50,000/- at the end of the said month. Admittedly, for five months out of six months stipulated in the agreement, there was no sale made by the plaintiff and the plaintiff also did not pay Rs.7,50,000/- to the defendants as per the terms of the agreement. According to the defendants, the six months period stipulated in the agreement of sale dated 02.10.2003, marked as Ex.A5, expired on 01.04.2004 and the plaintiff, if at all has any right to seek the relief of specific performance, ought to have instituted the suit within a period of three years i.e., on or before 01.04.2007, but the suit was filed only on 04.06.2007.