Doddobaiah and Others vs G.C. Rajashekara Reddy and Others

Ravi V. Malimath, J.—Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the Courts below in dismissing the plaintiffs'' suit for specific performance, the plaintiffs have filed this second appeal.

The father of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were doing coolie work in the land and house of the father and grand father of the defendants. Initially, the father of the plaintiffs was the owner of the suit schedule property which was granted to him and in turn, he sold the suit schedule property to the father and grand-father of the defendants by registered sale deed dated 15.11.1961 for a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. Since the suit schedule property was far way from the house of the defendants'' father and grand-father, the entire property was let out for the possession of the plaintiffs. On 24.10.1965 an agreement of sale was executed in favour of the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and ever since then, the plaintiffs are in possession of suit schedule property. The plaintiffs had paid the sale consideration of Rs. 13,000/- and balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,000/- was left to be paid to the defendants at their convenience as per the say of the defendants father and grand father. On 13.9.2005, after the death of the father of the defendants, when the plaintiffs approached the defendants to receive a sum of Rs. 2,000/- and execute a sale deed, the same was denied by the defendants. A legal notice was issued and as nothing came out of it, the present suit has been filed seeking for specific performance based on the agreement of sale dated 24.10.1965 and also for permanent injunction. On service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement denying the agreement of sale and contended that it is a created document since such an agreement was never executed as the plaintiffs were coolies under the defendants and they have neither the capacity to raise the money nor to purchase the same. That sale agreement is a created and concocted document. Hence, the suit requires to be dismissed.

On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

"i) Whether plaintiffs prove that grand father of defendants namely G. Iyyanna and G.C. Chandrashekhara Reddy agreed to sell the suit land in favour of plaintiffs for Rs. 15,000/-therefore, they executed agreement for sale dt: 24.10.1965 in favour of plaintiffs after receiving an amount of Rs. 13,000/-

ii) Whether plaintiffs prove that the father and grandfather of the defendants handover the possession of the suit landing favour of plaintiffs as part performance of contract?

iii) Whether plaintiffs further prove that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit land since from the date of agreement for sale till today?

iv) Whether plaintiffs prove that they always ready and willing to perform their part of contract?

v) Whether they further prove that the defendants are trying to interfere with their possession over the suit property?

vi) Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred by time?

vii) Whether valuation of the suit property is improper as alleged in the written statement?

viii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract and permanent injunction as claimed?

ix) What order?"

In order to prove their case, plaintiff No. 1 was examined as PW-1 and examined four more witnesses and got marked documents Exs. P1 to P3. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants and got marked documents Exs.D1 to D13.

The Trial Court answered Issue Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 in the negative, issue No. 6 and 7 in affirmative and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed. Hence, the present second appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. The Courts below failed to consider the material evidence on record. The trial Court ought to have decreed specific performance of agreement of sale. The trial Court has committed an error in not doing so.

In order to prove their case, plaintiff No. 1 was examined as PW.1 and another three witnesses as PWs.2 to 4. They have relied upon Ex.P2 - agreement of sale. The trial Court on considering the same, has opined that the document has been typed on two rupees stamp paper and the writing seems to be a new writing. Even though the paper is old, the recitals therein are new. The signature of the defendants'' father and grand father are not in the natural form, the signature is once written and again overwritten. The signature was shown as if the name has been written in hand by another person because the person who affixed his signature would lastly write his name freely and affirm his signature. This would go to show that the document is a created one. Further more, Ex.D1 is said to be a legal notice dated 30.1.1992 caused by Chandrashekharaiah, advocate as against G.C. Chandrashekhara Reddy S/o. of Iyanna i.e., father of the defendants herein stating that sale deed dated 1951-52 in favour of the defendants'' father and grand-father was only a nominal one and notice was caused to show that the agreement was never intended to be acted upon. These two documents are contrary to each other. Ex.D1 goes against the interest of the plaintiffs who have stated that the defendants'' father and grand father had executed the document in their favour in the year 1965. If that was the case, then the legal notice dated 30.1.1992 could have narrated the said agreement of sale. It has not been done. Ex.D1 runs contrary to Ex.P2. The material on record would show that the plaintiffs knew of the legal notice sent by them against the father of the defendants. In the circumstances, the trial Court was of the view that suit cannot be decreed. The relief of specific performance is a relief based upon the principles of equity. The document furnished is concocted and based on the same no relief can be granted to them. Hence, the suit was dismissed. The said finding was confirmed by the appellate Court.

The reasons assigned by the both the Courts below are just and proper and the same does not call for any interference. The document has been created in order to knock off the valuable property of the defendants. Contrary pleadings are based on the concocted document and as such cannot stand in the eyes of law. The Plaintiffs would not be entitled for any relief. Even otherwise, the entire case of the plaintiffs revolves around facts. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.

Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.

Since the appeal is dismissed, Misc. Civil. Nos. 12827/2011 and 12828/2011 for production of additional document and temporary injunction do not survive for consideration. Hence, they stand rejected.