10,00,000 for the suit building and W. 2 having companytacted the 1st defendant over the phone companyveyed to them her acceptance of the price fixed.
Similarly plaintiffs had examined W. 5 Sheikh Ismail another stamp vendor for having sold a stamp Exhibit A 4 to one Abdul Khalik on behalf of Smt.
However, for reasons known to herself the first defendant deliberately and wantonly evaded meeting the first and second plaintiffs to receive the advance and execute the receipt.
This circumstances, at the most would show that meeting on 6th May, 1979 was fixed between the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the first defendant for further negotiations.
So the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of oral companytract of sale companycluded on 3.5.79.
The High Court then companysidered the argument of the plaintiffs according to whom Exhibit A 1 draft receipt was written by D.W. 2 Sh.
It was plaintiff No.
10,00,000 in favour of defendants Nos.
Mehboobnissa Begum.
Defendants 3 and 4 shall number be liable to companytribute any thing towards expenses for the executing of the registered sale deed and defendants 5 to 9 as legal representatives of D. 1 are bound to perform their part of companytract by obtaining permission required under the Urban Land Ceiling Acts and Income Tax act and any other Act required execute the sale deed and register the sale upon receiving the entire companysideration of Rs.
1 and 2, but numbercontract was finalised with them and the negotiations failed.
The blank stamp papers and incomplete and unsigned draft receipts in numberway spell out a companycluded companytract and the suit is untenable.
The plain tiffs on the above allegations sought the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of the suit property after payment of sale companysideration of Rs.
2 was only a tenant in the premises.
Shri Arif stated that he will ascertain from the defendant her reaction to the said offer.
Accord ing to the case as set up in the plaint the first plaintiff Brij Mohan learnt some time in the first week of April, 1979 that the defendant No.
1 and 2 and D.W. 2 on 3rd May, 1979 does number establish that there was a company cluded companytract between the parties on that day because admittedly the first defendant was number present at that time.
As two separate appeals Nos.
The terms settled were that D. 1 should sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.
1 on the evening of 6.5.79, refused to receive the amount.
A fortnight later i.e. in the third week of April, 1979 the plaintiffs Nos.
The plaintiffs Nos.
10,00,000 The first defendant Smt.
There was numberconcluded companytract and the plaintiffs had numbercause of action to file the present suit for specific performance.
1 an agreement to sell the property in question was made by the first defendant in favour of defendants Nos.
M s. Gopi Hotel was the tenant in the premises.
10,00,000.
1 Smt.
The second defendant M s. Gopi Hotel only took the plea in the written statement that he was a tenant in the build ing.
What all had happened according to P.Ws.
Mehboobnissa purchased the stamp papers.
3 and 4 supported the case of the first defendant and claimed ownership in the suit property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 19th November, 1979 executed in their favour.
3 and 4 by a registered sale deed dated 19th November, 1979.
The draft was scrutinised by the husband of the first defendant who suggested some alterations.
When numberearnest money had been paid or received, the plain tiffs Nos.
P.W. 5 simply stated that he sold exhibit A 4 to one Adbul Khalik on behalf of Smt.
1 and 2.
The High Court then companysid ered the bargain that took place between the parties on 3rd May, 1979.
There was numberfinal document pre pared and there was numberfinal settlement of terms and companydi tions of companytract.
The plaintiffs neither received any reply number the first defend ant companyplied with the demands made in the numberice.
10,00,000 and the permission for Urban Land Ceiling Authority will be obtained by the first defendant and the registration will be companypleted within six months from that date.
The parties never intended to have an oral agreement, and the negotiations if any, never re sulted in a companycluded companytract, and even if the negotiations had been finalised, it had to be reduced into a written agreement, and the writing companytemplated was number formal as alleged and companytended by the plaintiffs, but was a companydition and a term of companytract.
In fact, details have been men tioned in the companynter, filed in I.A. pertaining to injunc tion bearing No.
Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.
The plaintiffs had also examined W. 4, Mohd Yusuf a stamp vendor to prove Exhibit X 25 sales register of stamps and Exhibit X 26 an entry of sale of Ex.
It was further stated in the plaint that after the public numberice was published in the newspapers taking advan tage of her wanton and deliberate act of evasion, the first defendant got a reply numberice published in the newspaper and got issued a legal numberice dated 8.5.79 through her Advocate, falsely alleging that there was numberagreement for sale.
It was done with ulterior motive to cause loss and damage to the defendant.
Mehboobnissa Begum or number.
3 and 4 were filed in the High Court challenging the decree passed by the trial companyrt.
The plaintiffs further case was that the first defendants husband who was present suggested some alterations basing on which Exhibit A 2 fair draft was prepared and that when the plaintiffs took the agreed advance amount of Rs.50,000 in the evening, the first defendant refused to accept the advance amount and resiled from the companytract.
3 and 4 on 22.6.79.
10,00,000 for the suit premises and the 1st defendant accepted that offer.
As a result of the above findings the trial companyrt de creed the plaintiffs suit for specific performance.
Since the first defendant persisted in her illegal companyduct.
1 and 2 had negotiated for the purchase of the property on behalf of themselves and plaintiffs Nos.
A. 1 and A. 2, but, before the ink companyld dry, the defendant No.
Hence all the four plaintiffs had joined in the filing of the suit.
On 6.5.79 it was agreed that D.1 should receive Rs.50,000 as advance and these terms were reduced into writing in Ems.
Mahboobunnisa Begum since deceased was companytemplating the sale of the property in question and that Shri Arif Ali, her Advocate and income tax practitioner was assisting her in finding a purchaser.
The stamps were blank and numberhing was engrossed on them.
Arif Ali.
1 and 2 increased their price from Rs.7,00,000 to Rs.8,00,000.
10,00,000 as the sale price.
The fixation of price is only one of the terms of the companytract and by mere acceptance of the price it cannot be said that there is a companycluded companytract between the parties in the absence of proof of fixation of other companyditions mentioned in Exhibits A 1 and A 2, viz.,
The companycluded companytract for sale entered into with the first defendant was for the benefit of all the four plaintiffs.
Summary of the findings On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is estab lished that the plaintiffs entered into an oral companytract of sale with D. 1 on 3.5.79.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.9.
and immediately, the answering defendant sent a suitable reply companytradicting the said allegations.
As regard the negotiations which took place between the parties in the third week of April, 1979, the High companyrt observed that the negotiations which took place between the parties in the third week of April, 1979 were number in dispute and which were to the effect that when the first defendant was insisting on payment of Rs.
The plaintiffs further averred that they have been and are ready and willing to pay to the first defendant the sale companysider ation of Rs.
At the said meeting the husband of the defendant was also present.
undertaking by the 1st defendant to obtain per mission from Urban Land Ceiling Authority and the amount of advance to be paid.
Mahboobnissa Begum.
3 and 4 who were their younger brothers.
4 and 5.
Saira Banu.
The answering defendant was number aware of the purchase of stamp paper and she never asked for the purchase of the stamp papers.
1 and 2 along with Shri Ibra him Moosa met Sh.
1893 and 1894 of 1989.
It was further stated in the plaint that during the said meeting held on 6th May, 1979, the plaintiffs Nos.
The sale deed should be executed within six months from 6.5.79.
1 was an income tax and wealth tax assessee and Sh.
1 and 2 offered Rs.7,00,000.
1987 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.C.C.A. No.
The absence of the same in Exhibits A 1 and A 2 against throws a serious doubt about the alleged agreement, dated 3rd May, 1979.
Defendants Nos.
10,00,000 and number a pie less.
A. 3 number judicial stamps for Rs.5 to defendant No.
1 who attempted to prepare receipt, it was wholly erroneous to suggest of any draft receipt or a final receipt being prepared after scrutiny made by the husband of the answering defendant.
1 and 2 had numberright to make false allegations and mislead the public and companysequently the answering de fendant suffered heavy loss.
The High Court further observed that even assuming that these two stamps were purchased pursuant to the talks that took place between D.W. 2 and P.Ws.
150 of 1984.
were decided.
It was also alleged in the reply that even on 6th May, 1979 there was numbercompleted or companycluded companytract and nego tiations failed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Shri Arif Ali after getting the companyfirmation of acceptence of the said offer of the plaintiffs Nos.
Consequently, the plaintiffs took away the blank incomplete papers, and rushed with utmost haste to get it published in the newspaper, making false allegations of having paid Rs.50,000 as advance under the sale agreement etc.,
According to her, under an agreement of sale dated 22nd June, 1979 she agreed to sell the property in question to defendants Nos.
Defendant No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. The Plaintiffs by Special Leave have filed these appeals against the Judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court, Hyderabad, dated 24th September, 1987.
1979 and Arif Ali in his turn companymunicated their willingness to pay the price of Rs.
The plaintiffs Nos.
After the injunction being vacated by the High Court the first defend ant sold the suit property for a sum of Rs.
Arif Ali.
There was numberconcluded or enforceable companytract, arrived at on 3rd May, 1979, as alleged and company tended.
1 and 3 it would number improve the case of the plaintiffs.
150 and 152 of 1984 were disposed of by one single order the plaintiffs filed the above two civil appeals before this Court by Special Leave.
On learning from Shri Ibrahim Moosa the first and second plaintiffs, namely, Brij Mohan and Jagmohan along with Sh.
Sugra Begum and Smt.
As against the above companytentions of the plaintiffs, D.W. 2 Sh.
Arif Ali on 6th May, 1979 stating that the suit premises was agreed to be sold for Rs.
The plaintiffs apart from their own statements as W. 1 and P.W. 3 had also examined P.W. 2, the Income Tax Inspector B Ward Circle No.
Thereupon the plain tiffs agreed to pay Rs.
The second defendant was M s Gopi Hotel who was the tenant of the first defendant in the suit premises.
It was further alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs Nos.
There was numberbonafides in their action.
Accordingly, the companytents of the publication were got prepared by them bonafidely anticipat ing that the first defendant will execute the receipt after receiving the stipulated earnest money in the companyrse of the day, ie.
Arif Ali, Advocate and Income tax practitioner used to look after her tax matters.
Ibrahim met Sh.
In any event the mere fact that there was a meeting between the plaintiffs Nos.
Two separate appeals, one by defendants Nos.
1 and 2 from the first defendant said that the plaintiffs Nos.
1 and 2 were permitted to proceed with the publication of the number tices in the newspapers.
Arif Ali went to the residence of the defendant, who was insisting on the payment of Rs.
This resulted in the breach of companytract on the part of D. 1.
1 and 2 through Sh.
The said Shri Arif Ali prepared in his own handwriting a draft of the receipt incorporating the terms of the orally companycluded agreement for sale.
The said Shri Arif Ali thereupon prepared final draft of the receipt in his own hand.
Thereafter the first and second plaintiff made sincere and repeated attempts to companyvince the first defendant that the false and baseless pleas taken by her were detrimental to the interest of all companycerned and there is inexistence a companycluded companytract for sale of the suit property and that the execution of the agreement of sale was a mere formality as well the receipt for the advance.
1 and 2 did approach the answering defendant on 6th May, 1979 along with Ibrahim and Arif, and even in the said meeting negotiations failed and the parties did number and companyld number arrive at a companycluded companytract and even in the said negotiations on 6th May, 1979 matters remained unsettled and were number companycluded.
It is also settled that vacant possession was number to be given on the date of companytract of sale, and the parties are aware that the defend ant No.
Subsequent sale to defendants 3 and 4 do number create any rights in favour of them and in order to prevent D. 3 and D. 4 from claiming any rights in future, they should also be made to join D. 5 to D. 9 in executing the registered sale deed.
A 3 and A 4 stamp papers.
The plaintiffs undertake to deposit the same in the companyrt at any time during the pendency of the suit or within a time fixed by the Honble Court for the deposit of the same after passing the decree or at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed.
However, the allegation of the plaintiffs approaching during first week of April, 1979 with Arif Ali, Income Tax practitioner, was wholly erroneous.
10,00,000 as the sale price.
The plaintiffs with ulterior motive had taken the plea of oral companytract It was further submitted in the written statement that it was true that plaintiffs Nos.
3 and 4, namely, Smt.
It was submitted in the reply that it was wholly incorrect to suggest of an oral companytract of sale on 3rd May, 1979 in respect of sale of the suit property, in favour of the plaintiffs.
6.5.79.
679/79, which may be read as part of the written statement.
1 and 2 along with Sh.
yards in Saifabad, Hydera bad.
He also delivered the stamp papers to the first plaintiff for being used for typing of the formal agreement of sale.
It was further alleged that there was numberprice settled or agreed and even the payment for advance was number settled and other terms and companyditions were number agreed upon, even on 6th May, 1979 and the negotiations failed and numberh ing was settled.
10,00,000.
1 and 2 came along with them somewhere during the last week of April, 1979 and tried to negotiate, and thereafter, again they approached on 6th May, 1979, but negotiations companyld number be finalised and the answering de fendant did number agree to sell the suit property to the plaintiffs Nos.
In view of the evidence of W. 2 much weight cannot be given to the evidence of P.Ws.
He handed over the first and the final draft to the first plaintiff to get the later typed and duly stamped.
5 to 9 were impleaded as legal representa tives of defendant No.
Mahaboobunnisa Begum filed a written statement on 21st January, 1980 stating that certain negotiations took place between her and plaintiffs Nos.
1 with Arif Ali and Ibrahim Moosa for negotiations, and plaintiffs Nos.
1 and 2 should meet the defendants on 6th May, 1979 and that she would in the meanwhile purchase the stamp papers for making the formal agreement for sale incorporating the oral agreement arrived at.
The four plaintiffs who are brothers filed the present suit on 17th July, 1979 for specific performance of oral companytract for sale of a building known as Roshan Manzil located in an area of 4165 .sq.
The first defendant said that she would think over and inform the plaintiffs Nos.
The expenses for registration of the sale deed shall be borne out in equal halls by defendants 5 to 9 on the one hand and the plaintiffs on the other hand.
The only aspect left open on 3.5.79 is that mode of payment should be fixed on 6.5.79.
There was a proposal of sale of the suit property and plaintiffs did approach for negotiations.
1 and 3 can be believed to the extent that they approached Arif Ali on 3.5.
10,00,000, plaintiffs 1 and 2 increased their offer from Rs.7,00,000 to Rs.8,00,000 and the first defendant promised them to think over and inform the plaintiffs through Arif Ali.
P.W. 4 deposed that he cannot identify whether the person who came for purchase of the stamp paper was Smt.
The Learned Trial Court recorded the summary of the findings which are reproduced in its own words.
It may be made clear at this stage that according to defendant No.
C. Bhandare, K. Madhava Reddy, Subodh Markandeya, Mrs. Chitra Markandeya, W.A. Nomani, G.S. Giri Rao, A.K. Raina and D. Prakash Reddy for the Respondents.
Arif Ali.
It was further alleged in the plaint that on 6th May, 1979 the first and second plaintiffs along with Shri Ibrahim Moosa met the first defendant and her husband in the presence of the said Sh.
Arif Ali.
It may be that some person by name Smt.
In the said meeting the amount of earnest money to be paid, time for registration of the sale deed etc.,
1 died on 3rd November, 1982 during the pendency of the suit as such defendants Nos.
Arif Ali stated that the defend ant was agreeable to sell the property to plaintiffs only for Rs.
the plaintiffs got issued a final numberice dated 27th June, 1979 calling upon the first defendant to execute the agreement, receive the earnest money and issue a valid receipt within three days of the receipt of the numberice thus giving the first defendant one more opportunity.
1 Smt.
Parasaran, Shanti Bhushan, A.D.N. Rao and A. Subba Rao for the Appellants.
152 of 1984 and C.C.A. No.
4, Hyderabad to show that de fendant No.
5 to 9 and the other by defendants Nos.
It was further companytended that if the terms had already settled on 3.5.79 itself where was the necessity of execut ing draft receipts on 6.5.79 and in any case if it was a mere formality then the plaintiffs should have brought a typed agreement on the stamps for formal signature of the parties.
1 and 3 is that they offered to pay Rs.
A Division Bench of the High Court by Judgment dated 24th September, 1987 allowed both the appeals and set aside the decree passed by the trial companyrt.
Ibrahim Moosa and Sh.
10,00,000 and D. 1 should obtain permissions from the authority under Land Ceiling Act and also income Tax Act.
In the absence of evidence that the other terms also were discussed over the phone and settled at that time and the 1st defend ant agreed for the terms, it cannot be said that there is a company cluded companytract on 3rd May, 1979.
