Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is the absolute owner of two items of land shown in the plaint schedule admeasuring Ac.2-40 cents and he agreed to sell the said property for Rs. 60,000/[email protected],000/- per acre to the plaintiff herein and received Rs. 30,000/- towards earnest money and delivered possession of the land to the plaintiff and executed agreement of sale dated 25-6-1983 and the father-in-law of the plaintiff Sri Boddu Ramachandra Rao arranged the said transaction on behalf of the plaintiff. As per the terms of that agreement the plaintiff shall discharge the loans due from the defendant to the Co-operative Society and Bank of India from out of the sale consideration and shall pay the remaining balance on or before 4-8-1983 and take sale deed from the defendant at the expenses of the plaintiff. Sri Boddu Ramachanra Rao who looked after the transaction paid Rs. 17,215.53 ps. to Bank of India, Pasivedala on 10-8-1983 towards the discharge of the debt due by the defendant and further paid a sum of Rs. 7,703/- in discharge of the loan due to Dhannavaram Co-operative Central Bank at Nidadavole and thus the total sum of Rs. 54,918.53 ps. was paid and the balance of Rs. 5,081.47 ps. was also paid on 18-8-1983 at the time of execution of sale deed. The plaintiffs father-in-law and the defendant went to the Sub-Registrar's Office on 18-8-1983 and the plaintiffs father-in-law purchased stamps worth Rs. 3,600/- as per the market value of the land from one Somayajulu, a stamp vendor at Nidadavole for the purpose of drafting the sale deed on the said stamps. Sale deed has been drafted on those stamps by Chamarti Subba Rao, a licensed document writer who was Head Village Karnam of Nidadavole. The plaintiffs father-in-law paid the balance of Rs. 5,081.47 ps. to the defendant and the defendant signed the sale deed as well as papers for mutation in the name of the plaintiff to be presented to the Sub-Registrar. But by the time the writing of the sale deed was completed it was late in the evening and could not be registered on that day and the defendant made a note of the amounts received and also amounts paid to the banks by the plaintiff in his own hand and showing the balance due to him as Rs. 5,081.47 ps. on a smaller paper before the execution of the sale deed and gave it to the plaintiffs father-in-law. After completion of the document the defendant demanded further payment of Rs. 358/- stating that he incurred the said expenditure for transplanting paddy on 5-6-1983 for which plaintiffs father-in-law did not agree. As the document could not be registered for want of time and as the demand for payment of Rs. 358/-was still there, the completed document and other papers including the sale agreement were kept with Sri Chamarti Hanumantha Rao who was the Village Karanam of Gopavaram for safe custody to be given at the time of registration. As the plaintiffs father-in-law was employed in Panchayat Raj Department was very busy and could not lookafter the registration of the document for sometime. On 18-12-1983 when the father-in-law of the plaintiff wanted to take steps for compulsory registration, the said Chamarti Hanumantha Rao with whom the papers were kept could not be traced on 18-12-1983 and then the father-in-law of the plaintiff suspected some foulplay and lodged a report with the police at Nadadavole, but the police did not take any action. Later, Chamarti Hanumantha Rao returned to Nidadavole about ten days prior to the filing of the suit and informed the plaintiff that on 15-12-1983 the defendant came to him and asked for the documents stating that he wanted to verify the amounts and wanted to show the documents to his brother and that later did not return the said documents and then he too gave report to the police, Nidadavole. Thus, the defendant having received the entire consideration committed offence of theft, cheating and criminal breach of trust by taking away the documents. The defendant is proclaiming that he would enter into the plaint schedule property and hence the plaintiff had no option except to file the present suit for specific performance and the document could not be registered even if it is traced on account of lapse of more than four months.

15. On the other hand, the earned Counsel for the respondent-defendant contended that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and therefore he is not entitled for equitable relief of specific performance and further there is no pleading in the plaint to the effect that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract and in spite of demand by plaintiff for registration of the sale deed, the defendant did not come forward. In this regard the earned Counsel for the defendant invited the attention of this Court to Form Nos. 47 and 48 which are prescribed for the pleadings in the suit filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale and contended that those forms are mandatory and that the present plaint is not in accordance with the said forms prescribed as there is no pleading to the effect that she has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and demanded the execution and registration of the sale deed. He further submitted that there is also no pleading to the effect that in the event of Court finding that there is some more balance, the plaintiff is prepared to pay and take the sale deed. He further submitted that the plaintiff did not get into the box to give evidence and therefore a presumption is to be drawn against the plaintiff under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submitted that as per the plaint itself, time is the essence of the contract and the date of agreement is 18-6-1983 and the date fixed for payment of balance and for execution of sale deed is on or before 4-8-1983 and that admittedly within the period the plaintiff has not paid the balance sale consideration and also did not express her readiness and willingness to pay the balance amount and take the sale deed within that prescribed time and that even on 25-8-1983 the plaintiff did not pay the balance and instead took a false plea of payment of entire balance. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief of specific performance. He submitted that the trial Court rightly refused to grant the equitable relief of specific performance on the ground that the plaintiff did not approach the Court with clean hands. The earned Counsel further submitted that the plaintiff did not file the agreement of sale and the alleged draft sale deed deliberately as the said documents would disclose the true facts and further the plaintiff did not choose to get into the box to state on oath about the averments pleaded in the plaint and therefore an adverse inference has to be drawn under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. In support of his contentions, the earned Counsel relied upon the following decisions:

Point Nos. 2 to 4:

19. PW-1 stated that after he paid Rs. 5,081.47 ps. due to the defendant at the time of drafting sale deed, the defendant signed in the sale deed as well as in the mutation forms. PW-2 the then Village Karanam of Gopavaram also stated that the defendant signed in the sale deed as well as in the mutation forms. PW-3 the document writer who drafted the sale deed for the plaintiff stated that he used to write the documents and that he maintains the register for documents drafted by him and that he also maintains a receipt book for the fees received by him for drafting the documents and handover the same in the Office of Registrar and that he obtained the signature of the defendant in his document register as well as in the receipt book after the defendant put his signature in the sale deed and that afterwards he handed over the sale deed to PW-2 at the request of both parties. According to PWs. 1 to 3, the document could not be registered as the defendant demanded Rs. 358/- towards the expenditure incurred by him for raising the crop prior to his handing over the possession of the land to the plaintiff in pursuance of the agreement of sale. As against their evidence, the defendant admitted about PW-1 taking him to the Registrar's Office stating that the defendant has to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration and also admitted drafting of the sale deed by PW-3 and also signing in the document register and also in the mutation forms. But, he denied having signed in the sale deed. According to him as the balance of Rs. 24,000/- was not paid to him on that day, as promised, he did not sign in the sale deed though he signed on all other forms and had instructed PW-3 to draft the sale deed on stamps worth Rs. 3,600/-. According to him PW-1 represented to him that his son went to Mukkamala, his father-in-law's place to get the amount and he would get it by evening before the registration of the document and therefore he instructed the document writer to write the document and he signed in the register maintained by the document writer and also in the mutation forms, but, subsequently as the son of PW-1 did not turn up and no amount was paid to him, he refused to sign in the sale deed. The evidence of the defendant that he did not sign in the sale deed as the balance sale consideration was not paid is improbable to believe as generally the balance amount will be paid only at the time of registration of the document and admittedly that stage had not yet reached. The defendant having signed in the register maintained by the document writer and also in 'E' Form and 'F' Form and having instructed the document writer to draft the sale deed, must have necessarily signed in the draft sale deed with the hope of receiving the balance sale consideration at the time of registration of the document or before presentation of the document for registration. The learned Judge did not believe the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 that the defendant signed in the sale deed. The reason given by the trial Judge is that according to the plaintiff the sale deed which was signed by the defendant along with the mutation forms was available with PW-2 for more than three months and PW-2 is the classmate of the plaintiff and therefore if really the document was signed by the defendant, the plaintiff and PW-1 would not have failed to take steps for compulsorily registration of the document. But, the learned Judge failed to note that the document was not with PW-1 and it was entrusted to PW-2 on account of disputes between PW-1 and the defendant in respect of the amount of Rs. 358/- demanded by the defendant towards the expenses incurred for the purpose of raising the crop in the lands for which PW-1 refused to pay. The account slip Ex.A-2 in which the defendant wrote the expenses totalling Rs. 358/- supports the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 that the defendant demanded Rs. 358/-and odd. The learned Judge believed that Ex.A-2 is in the handwriting of defendant after comparison of the similar writing Ex. A-8 made by the defendant in the open Court. Of course, the defendant denied having written Ex.A-2 also. The learned Judge rejected the same for sound reasons. If really there was no demand made by the defendant in respect of the cultivation expenses, there was no need for him to write such a slip Ex.A-2 and hand it over to PW-1. The defendant wrote the said slip on 5-6-1983. On the reverse of it, the amount of Rs. 358/- found in that slip was added to Rs. 5,041.47 ps. and arrived at total of Rs. 5,439.47 ps. Obviously this calculation on the reverse of Ex.A-2 slip was made on 18-8-1983 at the time of drafting the sale deed. So the slip Ex.A-2 and the calculations made on the reverse of Ex.A-2 would amply supports the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 that the defendant demanded Rs. 5,439.47 ps. though the balance sale consideration was only Rs. 5,081.47 ps. Further the defendant admitted that he has no enmity with PWs.2 and 3. PW-2 is no other than the Village Karanam and PW-3 is the Village Administrative Officer and both of them are brothers. I do not find any reason to disbelieve their evidence that the defendant put his signature in the sale deed drafted by PW-3. In view of the fact that the defendant signed in the register maintained by PW-3 and also in the mutation forms, it is more probable that the defendant must have signed in the sale deed and thereafter he refused to get that document registered on account of the dispute regarding the expenses or some other disputes which both parties do not want to disclose. The learned Judge disbelieved the very presence of PW-2 on 18-8-1983 at the Sub-Registrar's Office for the reason that he was not the scribe of the sale deed. The learned Judge commented that PW-2 is the classmate of PW-i and therefore his evidence cannot be believed. But, the learned Judge failed to note that the defendant himself stated that he has no enmity with PW-2. Merely because PW-1 is the classmate of PW-2, it cannot be said that PW-2 gave false evidence on oath. He is no other than the Village Karanam, a respectable person. PW-2 stated that the villagers used to come to him in respect of the sale transactions and as he has no licence to write the document, he got it scribed by PW-3, his brother. Therefore, in my considered view, the learned Judge erred in disbelieving the presence of PW-2. Further if really the defendant did not sign in the sale deed, there was no need for the plaintiff to plead in the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale and to adduce evidence to the effect that the defendant signed in the sale deed. If it is a suit for mere direction to present the document before the Sub-Registrar for registration, it can be said that the plaintiff had to plead and prove that the defendant signed in the sale deed. As seen from the prayer in the plaint, the plaintiff sought for specific performance of contract of sale directing the defendant to execute the sale deed. Therefore, there was no need to plead and adduce evidence to the effect that he signed in the draft sale deed, if the defendant did not really sign in the sale deed drafted by PW-3.