Ningamma and Others vs M.S. Azeezuddin

Anand Byrareddy, J.—This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for Specific performance of contract. It was the plaintiffs case that one Balaji Siddaiah was the absolute owner of the dry land bearing Survey No. 27/2C-1 measuring about 14 guntas and land bearing survey No. 27/2C-2 measuring about 1 acre and 33 guntas, totally measuring about 2 acres and 7 guntas at Sethugalli, kasaba hobli, Mysore Taluk. On the demise of Balaji Siddaiah, the defendants are said to have succeeded to the estate of Siddaiah.

It was claimed that the defendants sold 14 guntas of land in Sy. No. 27/2 C -1 to the Mysore Urban Development Authority. It was further claimed that under an agreement of sale dated 2.8.2004, the defendants had jointly agreed to sell 15 guntas of land bearing Sy. No. 27/2C-2, for a sum of Rs. 12.75 lakh and had received an advance sum of Rs. 2 lakh, towards the sale consideration. The sale deed was to be executed within a period of 3 months from the execution of the sale agreement.

However, it is claimed that the defendants failed to comply with the terms to complete the transaction, though the plaintiff was ready and willing to complete the transaction. Hence, a notice was said to have been issued on 25.10.2004 in this regard demanding that the sale be completed. Since there was no response, the suit was filed.

The defendants entered appearance and admitted the fact that they had succeeded to the estate of late Siddaiah and that they were the owners of the suit property. It was also admitted that a portion of the land was sold to MUDA, but all other averments in the plaint were sought to be denied. It was however, contended that the defendants were in dire need of funds and had in fact borrowed a sum of Rs. 1 lakh from the plaintiff on 2.8.2004 and they had readily signed on blank papers which were said to be made out into receipts for the money borrowed and for acknowledgment of the same. It was hence alleged that the plaintiff had cleverly manipulated those documents as an agreement of sale on the strength of which he had filed the suit and sought for dismissal of the same.

On the above pleadings the court below had framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have entered into an agreement of sale of suit property for valuable consideration of Rs. 12,75,000/- on 2.8.2004 and received Rs. 2 lakhs as an earnest money?

Whether plaintiff proves that he is/was ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

Whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract?

Alternatively, whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 6,00,000/- as damages?

Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?

What order or decree?"

The trial court had answered Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the affirmative, Issue No. 4 in the negative and Issue No. 5 partly in the affirmative and had decreed the suit. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.

It is contended that the plausible defence of the defendants has been unfairly negated by the trial court. It is urged that the land in question is prime non-agricultural land and valued at a minimum of Rs. 50 lakh per acre even in the year 2004 and has grown in value manifold as on date and it is blatant fraud to have indicated the value at Rs. 12.75 lakh, in the alleged agreement of sale, seeking to take advantage of the plight of the illiterate and widowed defendant No. 1 and equally helpless children

It is further contended that the suit property was ancestral property in which other female members have an interest and they had not joined the defendants in the agreement of sale, which is also an indication that the same is a got up document which would not bind such other members of the family. This aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked by the court below thus jeopardizing the interest of not only the defendants but also other interested parties who were not even before the court.

It is contended that the bona fides of the plaintiff are found wanting in having created the false and unconscionable agreement of sale. This is evident from the fact that he had not chosen to appear in person to tender evidence. He had chosen to hide behind a so called power of attorney holder, who had no knowledge of the transaction and was not involved in the same. The evidence of the said witness in support of the plaintiffs case was inadmissible and inadequate.

Though the primary defence is one of complete denial of the execution of the agreement of sale, a perusal of the agreement of sale and having due regard to the age of several of the defendants, who are all majors, excepting two, including five men aged between 21 and 45 as on the date of the suit, defendant No. 1 was certainly not a helpless widow. It cannot also be readily accepted that the agreement of sale, relied upon is a got up document.

The inadequacy of the consideration though is not a ground on which the relief of specific relief could be denied, the phenomenal increase in the land value corresponding the depleting value of the rupee, is certain to cause a deep seated frustration and heartburn in the seller of land who may have unwittingly or out of sheer desperation have entered into a transaction in respect of valuable land for a price much lesser than it would fetch. Or as in the instant case, the value has exponentially grown on account of other factors. This would hardly be a ground to deny the relief as prayed for by the plaintiff

Though this court in the first instance had granted an order of stay in this appeal, it was subsequently vacated at the instance of the respondent on finding that a sale deed had been executed in terms of the decree and on the plaintiff having deposited the balance sale consideration.

Though the appeal, in the light of the apparent facts and circumstances would require to be dismissed, the fact remains that the appellants would only now receive the sale consideration, if they do not seek to resist the proceedings any further. It cannot also be ignored that the plaintiff enjoys a benefit which is certainly of proportions which would not have been expected at the time of the bargain. It would hence meet the ends of justice if the defendants are provided with a nominal additional consideration, which could even be attributed to the interest that would have accrued on the principal amount of the sale consideration, at even a nominal rate of interest.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The respondent is directed to pay a further sum of Rs. 5 lakh in addition to the sale price that may have already been tendered and deposited. The same shall be deposited for the benefit of the appellants within a period of four weeks, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 18% from the date of default till the date of payment. This is also subject to the condition that the appellants do not challenge this judgment. In the event that they should do so, the partial relief granted would not be applicable. The appeal is disposed of in terms as above.