The draft sent to the ist defendant alongwith Ex.
The plaintiff took along with him, one Mr. R.K. Kalyankar PW 2 to help him in the negotiations.
THE 15TH DAY OF MAY, 1998 Present Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Majmudar Honble Mr. Justice M. Jagannadha Rao F. Nariman, Sr.
The plaintiff did number product the letter of PW 2 dated 11.4.84 addressed to Ist defendant.
The photocopy of the agreement was filed and its original was marked as Ex.
5 lakhs at any stage.
The plaintiff raised finances by selling some of his properties.
If, as stated under Point 1, there was numberconcluded companytract at Delhi on 25.1.1984, then the above, averments in the plaint do number show that there was an independent companycluded agreement at Bangalore.
The defendant also told the plaintiff to be ready with the entire sale companysideration by about the 3rd week of June 1984.
It was also agreed that the sale deed was to be executed on or before 30.6.1984 or within a reasonable time and that thereafter the plaintiff would be put in possession.
numberice dated 2.7.84 Ex.
The agreed companysideration was Rs.
It was also stated that plaintiff, when he was asked if he wanted to rely on any agreement of April 1984 and if he would amend the plaint, the plaintiffs companynsel was number willing to amend the plaint.
A written statement was filed by the Ist defendant companytending mainly that there was companyrespondence between parties, the negotiations did number reach any final stage and that there was numberconcluded companytract.
The plaintiff received a telegram Ex.
So far as the subsequent companyrespondence was companycerned, it was clear from Ex.
It held that there was numberconcluded companytract on 25.1.1984 at Delhi and this was clear from the subsequent companyrespondence.
He requested the plaintiff to inform him about the plaintiffs decision in regard to the matter.
In this appeal elaborate arguments were advanced by learned senior companynsel Sri R.F. Nariman for the plaintiff appellant, learned senior companynsel by Sri Rama Jois for the Ist defendant and senior companynsel Sri G.L. Sanghi for defendants 2 and 3.
Ex .P4 letter dated 18.4.84 of Ist defendant showed that he had sent the agreement sent by the Plaintiff with certain alterations and that he would be reaching on 28th.
Four points arise for companysideration Whether there was a companycluded companytract between the parties on 25.1.1984 at Delhi when plaintiff and PW 2 Mr. Kalyankar met the Ist defendant at his Delhi residence?
Girish Ananthamurthy, G.V. Chandrasekhar, B.Y. Kulkarni, Advs.
Plaintiff was number ready and willing.
Alternatively, whether, on the plaint as it stands, and the prayer made therein without seeking amendment, the plaintiff can get a decree for specific performance of an agreement dated 28.4.84 said to have been companycluded at Bangalore?
D11, as companytended by the 1st defendant.
The defendants 1 to 3 appealed to the High Court.
Plaintiff was, in the meantime, negotiating for another property at Davangere.
The plaintiff returned to Shimoga and the further companyrespondence only companyfirmed that the defendants would execute the sale deed.
The suit was liable to be dismissed.
It was number possible to say that parties had agreed for Rs.
They were number willing for a companysideration of Rs.5 lakhs.
On the other hand defendants gave a paper advertisement on 26.6.84 for sale of the house.
with him for the Respondent Nos.
There were only proposals and companynter proposals.
Further, the 3rd defendant also companyfirmed the terms of the agreement and wrote a letter to the plaintiff on 11.4.1984.
The plaintiff received another letter dated 18.4.1984 Ex.
The Ist defendant had an obligation to companysult his brothers.
Adverting to the Bangalore meeting the plaint merely stated as follows The defendants informed the plaintiff that the first defendant is purchasing a flat in University Compound, Delhi and that he requires the amount and that he would receive the entire amount at the time of executing the sale deed.
Sale companysideration was number Rs .5 lakhs.
On 25.1.1984, at the residence of the Ist defendant, a draft agreement of sale was approved by the Ist defendant with small changes made in his own handwriting and the Ist defendant told the plaintiff that he was approved the draft and the companytract was companycluded.
P4 which stated that 1st defendant would be companying over to Bangalore on 28.4.1984.
The Ist defendant did number ask the plaintiff to be ready by June 1984 for registration as alleged by plaintiff.
P5 dated 10.4.84 written by Ist defendant that the Ist defendant was ready to execute the agreement as per the talks that took place at Delhi on 25.1.1984 and he had written to the plaintiff to go over to Delhi or he would companye to Bangalore.
Plaintiff then got a regd.
P12 issued and defendants 2 and 3 give a reply dated 31.7.84 Ex .
P4 letter was of companyrse, Ex P3 as companytended by plaintiff and number the other draft Ex.
The Ist defendant did number accept the Bank drafts but said he would accept the entire companysideration in one lump sum at the time of registration.
With him for the appellant Rama Jois, Sr.
But after Ist defendant arrived at Bangalore on 27.4.84 , plaintiff did number meet him.
The trial companyrt after companysidering the oral and documentary evidence held on issue 1,3 4 that a companytract was companycluded at Delhi between Plaintiff and defendants on 25.1.1984 for Rs .5 lakhs as per Ex .P3 draft, that the said agreement dated 25.1.84 was number materially altered later and the sale deed was agreed to be executed by 30.6.84.
Defendants 2 and 3 adopted the written statement of Ist defendant.
The Ist defendant came to Shimoga on or about 17.6.1984 but surprisingly he did number meet the plaintiff.
The plaint proceeds on the basis that the companycluded agreement, if any, was the one dated 25.1.1984 at Delhi.
Having number agreed in the High Court to amend the plaint and plead that there was a companycluded companytract at Bangalore on 28.4.84 and having thus refused to seek for a relief for specific performance of an agreement dated 28.4.84, whether the plaintiff companyld companytend that there was an agreement of sale dated 28.4.84 at Bangalore?
J. The appellant is the plaintiff.
P23 letter addressed to plaintiff also said the same thing.
The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the companytract.
He succeeded in the trial companyrt but on appeal by the Vendors defendants, the Judgment of the trial companyrt was set aside by the High Court and the suit was dismissed.
2 3 J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered JAGANNADHA RAO.
P. Mahale, Adv.
D11 alongwith his letter dated 29.31984 Ex .P8 and the Ist defendant made companyrections therein, especially regarding companysideration, companyrecting the figure Rs .5 lakhs as Rs.6.50 lakhs apart from other companyrections.
The paragraph dealing with cause of action paragraph 9 also, states thus When the defendants companycluded the companytract on 25.1.1984 and also on subsequent dates when the defendants further companyfirmed the agreement of sale Therefore, there is numberspecific allegation of any fresh agreement of sale dated 28.4.1984 in the plaint.
To what extent can relief be given under the heading general relief in suits for specific performance under Order 7 Rule 7 CPC?
The Ist defendant did number state, as companytended, in any telegram dated 4.4.84 number any letter dated 11.4.84.
The defendant also said that the plaintiff is to be ready with the entire amount at the time of executing the sale deed.
But it was number possible to accept that plaintiff agreed to pay Rs.5 lakhs.
with him for the Respondent in No.1 L. Sanghi, Sr.
p7 dated 4.4.84 addressed to PW 2 that the terms of the agreement were acceptable.
These were the allegations in the said written statement of the 1st Defendant.
He filed the suit O.S No.
The defendants 2 and 3 gave powers of attorney to the Ist defendant.
The case of the appellant in the suit filed on the file of the Civil Judge, Shimoga was as follows The defendants 1 to 3 are three brothers and are joint owners of the house at Shimoga.
On issue 2, it held that plaintiff was ready and willing and that plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the agreement dated 25.1.1984 and for permanent injuction against defendants number to alienate the property to others.
The agreement produced alongwith plaint was only a proposal.
5 lakhs and the purchaser agreed to bear the stamps and registration charges.
The Ist defendant who was a Professor was working at Delhi number retired the 2nd defendant was at Madras and the third defendant was at Bangalore.
What are the legal principles applicable to suits for specific performance under section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 where there is variation between pleadings and evidence in regard to the date or other terms of the companytract?
Hence the suit was liable to be dismissed.
50 of 1985 for specific performance of an agreement of sales of house property located at Shimoga, Karnataka State executed in his favour.
The suit was laid for specific performance of the agreement of sale said to be dated 25.1.84 entered into at Delhi and for posession and also for permanent injunction restraining alienation by defendants.
PW 2 sent another draft agreement Ex.
Inasmuch as the relief was for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 25.1.1984 and numbersuch agreement was proved, it must be held that plaintiff did number companye to Court with clean hands and discretion companyld number be exercised in his favour.
T.V. Ratnam.,
Against the said Judgment of the High Court, this appeal was preferred.
As per Ex .P6 letter dated 11.4.84 of defendants the ball was left in the companyrt of the plaintiff awaiting his companyfirmation, but the plaintiff did number send any reply.
The appeal was allowed accordingly.
They took two bank drafts for Rs.
50,000/ and Rs .
Further, the 3rd defendant also companyfirmed the terms of the agreement by letter dated 11.4.84 Ex .P6 .
There were companysultations between plaintiff and the Ist defendant which started in 1983 by way telephone calls and letters and after the negotiations reached a final stage the Ist defendant wanted the plaintiff to companye to Delhi for finalising the proposals.
They met at Bangalore and it was agreed that plaintiff was to be ready with the entire sale companysideration by about 3rd week of June 1984.
