HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH v. Smt. Parwati Sharma

Judgment

1. Heard.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 26.07.2016, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, (FTC), Rajnandgaon (CG) in Civil 2 Suit No.9-A/11, whereby the suit for specific performance of contract filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The instant appeal is by the plaintiff/purchaser to the agreement.

3. The suit was filed on 31.03.2009 that the plaintiff entered into an agreement with Smt. Parwati Sharma for purchase of a land bearing Khasra No.274/8 and 274/13 total 16,000/- sq. feet, situated at Village Lakholi for consideration of Rs.97 Lakhs. The agreement of sale was executed on 03.12.2007 and earnest money of Rs.5 Lakhs was paid in cash thereafter on 08.12.2007 Rs.1,50,000/- cash was paid and subsequently an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- & Rs.1,00,000/- was paid through cheque thereby total earnest money of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid and according to the plaintiff, the sale was to be executed till

03.09.2008. As per plaintiff before such sale deed is executed, a month before the land was required to be demarcated and all the documents of title deed were required to be handed over. It was further agreed that part of the subject land since was occupied by Ashoka Transport, it was also decided to get such premises vacated from them. It was further agreed that since the land was adjacent to the National Highway it was agreed in case the part of land is acquired for construction of the Highway if any part of the land is released, then the condition of adjustment the amount of consideration was agreed. It was also agreed that if the land goes by measuring from 90 feet from the center of the

road, then it would be the seller’s liability. Further as per plaintiff it was agreed that from the date of agreement if seller is in need of money 3 within a period of three months an amount of Rs.15 Lakhs would be paid and the rest of the amount would be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. The agreement was typed on 08.12.2007 wherein the receipt of Rs.5 Lakhs on 03.12.2007 was acknowledged. It further stated that in the agreement, the number of land was shown wrongly by typographic mistake and it was written as 278/8 and 274/13.

4. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant sent a notice of cancellation of the agreement on the ground that the plaintiff had not paid the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- within three months from the date of

03.12.2007. The plaintiff further stated that after receipt of cancellation notice of agreement, the plaintiff published a public notice that as to whether anyone has any right or charge over the property, but pursuant to such public notice no response was received. Whereas the defendant published the cancellation notice of agreement in the news paper. The plaintiff further stated that as agreed, the plaintiff appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 12.05.2008 with the amount of consideration to get the sale deed registered but the defendant did not turn up and when contacted it was stated that the Husband of the defendant is since out of station, therefore, the sale deed could not be executed and the same state of affairs continue and eventually the plaintiff by a notice dated

27.05.2008 called upon the defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour. The plaintiff further stated that the defendant neither got the land demarcated as agreed in the sale agreement nor got the part of the land vacated from Ashoka Transports, therefore, she herself failed to 4 perform her part of contract and illegally annulled the agreement. Consequently, the execution of the sale deed of the subject property of agreement by payment of 87 Lakh was prayed for.

5. The defendant in her reply agreed to receive the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs pursuant to the oral agreement on 03.12.2007 for sale of land bearing Khasra No.274/8 & 274/13. It was stated that on 03.12.2007 no agreement was executed and receipt of the amount of Rs.5 Lakhs was only acknowledged in a stamp of Rs.50/- and the plaintiff promised that the rest of the amount of Rs.5 Lakhs would be paid and he would bring a stamp paper with the agreed terms and would get the signature of the defendant. The defendant further stated that believing into the statement of the plaintiff on 08.12.2007, the typed agreement was brought which contained the receipt of Rs.5 Lakhs. It was stated the agreement was typed one but the payment of Rs. 15 Lakhs within three months from

03.12.2007 on need was wrongly typed with the added word that in case of need by the defendant, Rs.15 Lakhs would be paid. The defendant further pleaded that 200 sq. feet area which was occupied by the Ashoka Transport got vacated, but the plaintiff knowing full well the identity added the word demarcation would be carried out and the report would be supplied to the plaintiff was added. It is stated that believing the statement of the plaintiff, the defendant signed the agreement. Though the alleged part of the premises under occupation of Ashoka Transport was got vacated and the measurement of the land was already carried out. 5

6. The defendant further contended that she wanted money for her different needs for that the agreement of sale was executed but according to agreement, within three months of the agreement Rs.15 Lakhs was not paid. As such terms of the agreement was not complied. Thereby, the plaintiff himself got the agreement annulled by his conduct.

7. It was further submitted by the defendant that the defendant served a notice on 17.03.2008 informing cancellation of the agreement. It was stated that the defendant had already complied her part of obligation under the agreement but plaintiff did not pay the amount of Rs.15 Lakhs within three months, therefore, the defendant did not reciprocate to the notice of the plaintiff when served as agreement was already cancelled. It is further stated that the false publication was made in the paper by the plaintiff and it was rebutted by the defendant and contradictory statements have been made for compliance of the terms of agreement. The defendant contended that since the agreement was already annulled, therefore, no further action was required in respect of the agreement and the intention of the plaintiff was not for purchase but to sell it further at a higher price to some other purchasers. Consequently, the averment of the plaintiff that he was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed is wrong and he did not have the money to pay the sale consideration. The defendant further stated that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and the suit be dismissed.

8. On the basis of the pleading learned Court below framed 9 issues.

9. In respect of issue No.1 which pertains to whether the plaintiff is 6 entitled to get the sale deed of Khasra No.274/8 & 274/13 i.e. 16000sq. feet by payment of balance sale consideration, the finding was given that the subject land was mortgaged, therefore, the plaintiff would not be entitled to pay the amount of balance consideration and to get the sale deed registered. With respect to issue No.2 the Court held that whether the agreement stood canceled for non-payment of Rs.15 Lakhs within three months as averred by the defendant, the Court held in negative. With respect to the readiness and willingness, the issue No.3 the Court held that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to execute his part of contract. With respect to the identity of the land as issue No.6 which pertains to whether the land described in the agreement is a different land, the Court held that the identity of the land is not in dispute and further upheld the fact of issue No.7 it held that whether the agreement was made in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.274/8 and 274/18 total 1000 sq. feet, it was answered in negative. Further the Court in respect of issue No.8 held that whether the plaintiff himself has committed breach of the agreement and in answer it was found that it is not proved.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that despite holding the fact that the agreement was very much in existence and the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the suit was dismissed only on the ground that the subject land was under mortgage with the bank so no sale deed could have been executed. He would further 7 submit that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff would go to show that he tried to create the case against the pleading and it is settled law that the evidence cannot be looked into beyond the pleading. It is further stated that though in agreement it was written that the property was not subject of any charge but during the evidence before the Court it was tried to be proved by the defendant that the property is under mortgage with the Bank, therefore, the defendant himself committed a fraud on plaintiff by taking Rs.10 Lakhs. He would further submit that the defendant has denied the contents of the agreement and has raised the ground of fraud, therefore, he should not have been allowed to challenge the contents of the agreement and about readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to execute. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the case of J.P. Builders and another Vs. A. Ramdas Rao and Another {(2011) 1 SCC 429} to submit that when the huge court fees and earnest money was paid, the Court should have molded the relief by clearance of the mortgage amount so as to render substantive justice to the plaintiff and accordingly the suit for specific performance should have been decreed.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent referring to the cross- objection would submit that in the written statement it is stated about the identity of the land as land bearing Khasra No.274/8 & 274/13 were shown in the plaint but in agreement 274/8 & 274/18 is shown, therefore, the identity of the land in question is in dispute. He would further submit that in the written statement it is specifically stated that 8 the oral agreement was drawn and subsequently it got typed and additional condition was added that in case of demand Rs. 15 Lakhs would be paid, which was not the part of the agreement. Referring to the statement of DW-1 he would submit that on two dates i.e. on

02.03.2008 and 14.03.2008 the amount of Rs.15 Lakhs was demanded and when the amount was not paid, the agreement was canceled by notice Ex. P-2, therefore, the subsequent notice after the cancellation of the agreement even if the plaintiff says that he wanted to pay the amount it would be of no use. He refers to the case of I.S. Sikandar (Dead) By Lrs. Versus K. Subramani and others {(2013) 15 SCC 27} to submit that when no prayer was made, a declaration of the cancellation of the agreement was bad and the suit for specific performance cannot be entertained. He would further submit that the subject land was mortgaged with the bank, therefore, the decree for specific performance could not be granted. As according to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 the first charge of the bank would remain. He would further submit that it has been stated that the money would be arranged from one Rupesh Lodha and the plaintiff went for execution of the sale deed on 12.05.2008 but Rupesh Lodha has not been examined to show that the plaintiff has sufficient means to pay.

12. He would further submit that the word has been used in the plaint that Tatpar and Ikshuk it will not constitute readiness and willingness, 9 therefore, the plaintiff when himself was in breach, he cannot ask for execution of agreement for specific performance and he placed his reliance in the case of U.N. Krishnamurthy (Since Deceased) through Lrs. Versus A.M. Krishnamurty 2022 OnLine SC 840 to show that the plaintiff must prove that he has sufficient fund to purchase the land. He would further submit that because of the non-payment of the amount, the agreement was canceled and the defendant himself suffered loss as such return of the earnest money is bad and accordingly that part of the order too requires to be set aside apart from the holding the issue of readiness and willingness in favour of the victim.

13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and the evidence.

14. First with respect to the identity of the land, the agreement shows Khasra No.278/8 & 274/8 admeasuring 16000 sq. feet situated at Village Lakholi, District Rajnandgaon. The plaint averments it is stated that the execution of the sale deed is sought for aforesaid lands. In the agreement wrong number has been shown, the actual number is 274/8 & 274/13. Perusal of the statement of the witness and the earlier injunction order which is part of the record, in the civil suit dated 26th August, 2009, would show that the said order was granted in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant were restrained to create third party interest in respect of subject land. In such order, injunction was granted in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.274/8 & 274/13 admeasuring 16000/- sq. feet, therefore, the plaintiff and defendant were in know of the fact for which the litigation is going on. 10

15. Narendra Sharma (DW-1) at para 32 has admitted the fact that in Rin Pustika the name of Parwati was recorded in Khasra No.274/8 admeasuring 19 decimal and Khasra No.274/13 admeasuring 18 decimal thereby total 37 decimal was recorded and apart from those lands no other land is recorded in name of his wife at Village Lakholi. He further admitted that agreement for sale was in respect of those lands only. Further at para 33 with respect to the notice given to the defendant No.1 Parwati, the witness admitted that in the notice received by him, contained the same fact and that by clerical mistake in agreement Khasra No.278/8 and 274/8 was written whereas in the revenue records it was 274/8 and 274/13.

16. In view of said averments & evidence it shows that the learned trial Court at issue No.6 has held that the identity of the land is not in dispute has rightly come to a finding. When holding of Parwati in a particular locality in respect of land bearing Khasra No.274/8 and 274/13 was 37 decimal and no other land exists there, when such admission is read with Ex. P-26, the Rin Pustika, the identity of the land cannot be put to question and the finding by the learned trial Court is correct.

17. Since the issue revolves around the agreement (Ex. P-1), the same is perused. In the said agreement, the stamp was purchased by Parwati and endorsement shows that it was on 03.02.2007 an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs was received, thereafter, on subsequent date different amount was received and total consideration on 08.12.2007 as part payment of sale consideration Rs.10/- Lakhs was made. 11

18. The plaintiff Bhagchand Jain (PW-1) in his deposition stated at para 20 that he wanted to purchase the land for his own and not for others. The suggestion given to him that he was in business of purchase and sale of the land was also denied. This fact is corroborated by Mangilal Jain (PW-2) about execution of Ex. P-1. Therefore, the primary allegation of defendant that plaintiff only wanted to transfer the land at higher price cannot be appreciated. The defendant in his written statement admitted the initial oral agreement on 03.12.2007 and stated that Rs.10 Lakhs was paid at the time of agreement and thereafter within three months Rs.15 Lakhs was required to be paid.

19. At para 2.3 of the written statement, the defendant has stated that on

08.12.2007 one agreement was brought in the blank stamp which contained receipt of Rs.5 Lakhs by the defendant and believing that to be true that terms as agreed upon was been correctly written, the defendant Parwati and her husband signed the agreement in the capacity of seller and witness. It has been further stated that in the agreement wrongly it was written that the amount of Rs.15 Lakhs would be paid in case of need expressed by the seller within three months. At para 2.4 it is further stated by the defendant that the plaintiff knowing full well added a clause that the land would be demarcated and the report would be given and signature on the document were made by the defendant only by believing the plaintiff. Thereby the defendant doubted the very execution of the agreement that it is outcome of fraud.

20. Narendra Sharma (DW-1) at para 3 of his statement stated that on 12

08.12.2007 no agreement was executed but the plaintiff got the signature in the blank stamp of his wife and the terms of sale were written on it in absence of his wife without giving any information, on the own accord of plaintiff the terms were added but at the time of actual sale agreement no such terms were agreed that after three months an amount of Rs.15 Lakhs would be given. Further challenging the contents of document Ex. P-1, the terms of the agreement were denied and stated that the plaintiff got the terms added of his own, but when he read the same he objected to it, but it was explained that the agreement are written in that way, therefore, believing such submission, he signed the document Ex. P-1. The defendant maintains the stand that agreement Ex. P-1 is a forged one. In the cross-examination of this witness when Ex. P-1, the agreement, was confronted, he at para 23 denied to have received Rs.5 Lakhs on 03.12.2007 and denied to have purchased the stamp by him. The agreement Ex. P-1 when are compared which such oral statement it would show that on 03.12.2007 receipt of Rs.5 Lakhs has been shown and the stamp was also shown to be purchased in name of Parwati by Narendra Sharma, the husband of defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 Parwati has not been examined. The defendant witness further denied that the agreement was brought after typed on 08.12.2007 but he admitted to have received the cheque of Rs.5 Lakhs on 08.12.2007. He further admitted that on 08.12.2007 the agreement Ex. P-1 signed by seller and purchase and other witnesses.

21. Perusal of the agreement Ex. P-1 shows that the sale was fixed at 13 consideration of Rs.97 Lakhs and 10 Lakhs was given as a consideration. Further in between 03.12.2007 till 03.09.2008 the time was fixed to get the sale deed registered. It further contains that if seller wants any amount after three months, an amount of Rs.15 Lakhs would be given and rest of the amount would be given at the time of registration. The said contents when are seen along with para 19 of the cross-examination of Narendra Sharma (DW-1), he admits that it is correct to say that after the agreement, in absence of payment of Rs.15 Lakhs within three months, the sale would be canceled, is not written in Ex. P-1. Narendra Sharma (DW-1) further stated that he went to demand Rs.15 Lakhs to the plaintiff along with one Sandeep Shrivastava, but the amount was not given to him. The averments and the defence of the respondent along with the contents of Ex. P-1, it do not show any condition that within three months from 03.12.2007 without any demand the amount of Rs.15 Lakhs would further be paid to the seller.

22. The defendant as against the terms of contract has tried to raise a ground by oral evidence, which would not be admissible under Section 92 of the Evidence Act. To challenge the terms of grant or deposition, when it is reduced in writing and the oral evidence for that purpose would not be admissible. Now turning to the other condition, the agreement purports that from 03.12.2007 till 03.09.2008, the sale deed would be executed and the agreement further contains that before one 14 month of sale, the demarcation would be done as per procedure and the demarcation report would be made available to the purchaser, thereafter, only the sale deed would be executed. It further engrafts the documents pertains to property & previous registry paper would be handed over at the time of the execution of the sale deed.

23. There is nothing on record to show that demarcation was ever carried out. It is also obvious that in a transaction of the like nature where the sale amount is considerably high, it is logical to presume that the purchaser would ask for demarcation report before purchase of property. The defendant tried to project in his evidence that no such condition was existing and consequently since the amount of Rs.15 Lakhs was not given, the cancellation of the agreement was done by notice dated

17.03.2008 (Ex. P-2). The contents of the notice whereby the cancellation of the agreement was done shows that the defendant served a notice to the plaintiff that the amount of Rs.15 Lakhs was to be paid within three months from 03.12.2007, which had expired on

03.03.2008, as such despite demand in person on phone, the amount since has not been paid, the agreement stand cancelled.

24. In response to such cancellation of agreement, the plaintiff served a notice Ex. P-3, wherein it was stated that the amount of Rs.15 Lakhs was never demanded and stated that where and when the amount is to be paid please inform, so that the amount can be paid. The plaintiff, thereby expressed his willingness to pay the amount of Rs.15 Lakhs. Thereafter, the exchange of various notices were made but eventually 15 nothing materialized. The contents of Ex. P-1, the agreement do not support the fact that within three months from 03.12.2007 amount of Rs.15 Lakhs would be paid instead it contains a clause that in case of need within three months from 03.12.2007 an amount of Rs.15 Lakhs would further be paid to the defendant. The defendant though stated that he on two occasions demanded the money but evaluating the conduct of defendant it is difficult to rely on such oral statement. The Ex. P-1 further contains a clause that before execution of the sale deed, the land would be demarcated. Though it was written in the agreement till

03.09.2008 sale deed would be executed but such execution was to be preceded by obligation on part of defendant to carryout the demarcation. Therefore, the contents of agreement would show that time was not the essence of contract that 03.09.2008 was the target date for execution of agreement.

25. In Rathnavathi and Another v Kavita Ganashamdas1, the Supreme Court reiterated the law down in Govind Prasad Chaturvedi v Hari Dutt Shastri2 and Gomathinayagam Pillai v Palaniswami Nadar3and held thus at paras 35 and 36 :

35. In Govind Prasad Chaturvedi Vs. Hari Dutt Shastri, this Court placing reliance on the law laid down in Gomathinayagam Pillai, reiterated the aforesaid principle and held as under (Govind Prasad case, SCC pp.543-44, paras 5-6): “5…….It may also be mentioned that the language used in the agreement is not such as to indicate in unmistakable terms that the time