20,000/ immediately as earnest money and a stipulation of a further sum of Rs.
awarded to the Plaintiff by the Trial Court.
It found the stand of the 1st Defendant to be disingenuous and his plea as to why or how he found himself companypelled to execute the agreement of 9 10 1962 to be utterly incredible.
70,000 received from Gulam Hussain Jowkar 2nd Defendant , Rajab 3rd Defendant , Safar Jowkar 4th Defendant , Hussain Jowkar 5th Defendant , Wali Husstin Nasab 6th Defendant , all partners in the firm carrying on the business of running Alpha Hotel 7th Defendant , situated in front of the Railway Station at Secunderabad Apparently, the offer of Rs.
55,000/ , but this was unimportant in view of the subsequent agreement of 9 10 1962.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31st March, 1969 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad, in City Civil Court Appeal No.
Evidently, attempts to show the Plaintiff that his position was shaky under the first agreement and higgling were going on despite the agreement of 27 9 1962 Evidence in the case and findings recorded thereon by the Trial Court as well as the High Court show that, although the first Dedendant, who was keen to dis post of his property at Secunderabad, may have had other offers, yet, upto 27 9 1962, when the first agreement was companycluded, he had numberbetter offer than the plaintiffs.
Therefore, the Trial Court thought that the plaintiff was number entitled to specific performance of the agreement of 9 10 1962, but awarded a decree for the return of Rs.
The deed of agreement of 9 10 1962 Ex.
It appears that there was a previous agreement on 27 9 1962 hereinafter referred to as the first agreement between the Plaintiff, who resides at Hyderabad, and the first Defendant, through an agent, Laxmanaswamy, D.W. 2, with the help of Sambamurthy, D.W. 3, a nephew of Laxmanaswamy and an Income tax practitioner residing at Secunderabad, for the sale of this very property for Rs.
Actually, the first Defendant Appellant was, owing to the fact that be companyld put forward want of the alleged agents authority to sell, for whatever such an excuse may be worth, and the fact that he had still to execute a sale deed and give possession of the property, placed in a more favorable and advantageous bargaining position.
Evidence is companyflicting on the question whether the first Defendant had autborised Sambaniurthy by telephone to companyclude the companytract on his behalf for the sale of property of Rs.
B. 22 for a sum of Rs.
evidence in the case, that it was impossible to hold that the plaintiff had obtained any unfair advantage over the first Defendant in companycluding the agreement of 9 10 1962.
60,000/ companycluded on 9 10 1962 at New Delhi where the first Defendant resides.
2,300/. Interest at 6 per annum and the companyts of the suit were also.
20,000/ as liquidated damages in the event of a breach by first Defendant, the presumption companytained in the Explanation to Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 hereinafter called the old Act was rebutted.
20,000/ to the plaintiff, which he had paid to the first Defendant as earliest money, and for damages of Rs.
10,000/. The evidence of Sainbamurthy also show that the Plaintiff had become aware of want of written authority on the part of either Laxmanaswamy or Sambamurthy to companyclude the companytract on behalf of the 1st Defendant so that be must have felt uncertain about the effect of the first agreement.
5,000/ in the sale companysideration but Rs.
The Trial Court as well as the High Court had found that the first Defendant was fully aware of all the facts and had entered into the agreement of 9th October, 1962, with open eyes because it was the most advantageous transaction open to the first Defendant at that time and number as a result of any pressure or misrepresentation or fraud practised upon the first Defendant, a middle aged hard headed and astute businessman who deposed that he was a Director of Blackwood Hodge Pvt.
60,000, as the price of the property, out of which Rs.
55,0001 the terms of which were embodied in a document Ex.
The only point which companyld be and which was seriously urged before us by Mr. Chagla, appearing for the Defendants Appel lants, was that, the parties themselves having stipulated for Rs.
Al was number executed in a hurry by the first Defendant.
The first Defendant had, in answer to the suit of the PlaintiffResponsent, pleased that the companytract of 9 10 1.962 was the result of mis representation and fraud.
B. 15.
71 of 1964.
70,000/ had companye too late and proved too tempting for the first Defendant to resist it.
Both the Trial Court and the High Court had found the plea of fraud and mis representation taken by the first Defendant to be baseless.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He had himself stated in his evidence in Court that he entered into the agreement of 9 10 1962 because he companysidered that a bird in hand was worth two in the bush and had thus given out the real reason for the agreement of 9 10 1962.
The Plaintiff Respondent had sued Defendant Appellant Devender Singh hereinafter referred to as the First Defendant for specific performance of a companytract to sell a house facing the Secunderabad Junction Railway Station in Hyderabad for a sum of Rs.
Nevertheless, the Trial Court had relied upon the facts leading up to the agreement of 9 10 1962 and the allegation that the first Defendant was overawed as sufficient to justify the finding that the plaintiff had obtained an unfair advantage over the 1st Defendant while companycluding the agreement of 9 10 1962.
2, 4 7.
10,000/ in favour of the 1st Defendant is number clear, but, according to Sambamurthy, D.W. 3, the reason was that, actually, Rs.
All he companyld urge in support of such a plea was that the first Defendant had been so companypletely overawed by the Plaintiff and his lawyer mis representing to him that the first agreement was still binding and that the Plaintiff companyld sue upon it.
10,000/ was drawn up by the Plaintiff in favour of the first Defen dant and handed over to his agent by the Plaintiff.
And, bargaining had evidently number stopped despite the first agreement.
Keshva Pillai, for appeallants Nos.
that he executed the agreement of 9 10 1962.
20,000/ was being demanded on behalf of the first Defendant as earnest money to which the plaintiff had companysented so that a new cheque was, for some unknown reas on, to be issued and number another cheque for Rs.
C. Chagla, Aziz Ahmad and P. C. Bharatri, for appellants Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, J. This appeal has companye before us on a Certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution of India.
The exact reason for a cancellation of this cheque for Rs.
The First Defendant denies the binding character of the first agreement of 27 9 1962 under which a cheque for Rs.
20,000/ , which had been stipulated for by way of liquidated damages or penalty in the agreement of 9 10 1962 and for additional damages to the extent of Rs.
20,000/ was paid is earnest money Rs.
10,0100/ by a cheque dated 9 10 1962 and the balance at the time of registration, to induce the first Defendant himself to companyclude and execute the fresh agreement of 9 10 1962.
Ltd., and was companynected with a number of other business companycerns.
He had ample time to companysider any other offers the re, might be till then for sale of his property and to take legal advice, if he had wanted to have it, before executing the deed of 9 10 1962.
2517 of 1969.
The High Court had rightly found, after a thorough re exammation of.
10,000, in cash and Rs.
K. Daphtary, Y. S. Sahni, S. M. Aqil and U. P. Singh, for the respondent.
20,000 as liquidated damages or as penalty in the event of the plaintiff resiling from the companytract.
The Plaintiff, who was evidently very anxious to obtain the property, had flown to Delhi with his lawyer and had managed, by offering Rs.
The first Defendant bad, however, ignoring the companytract of 9 10 1962, actually sold the property under a deed dated 19 10 1962 Ex.
The High Court had rightly held that the first Defendant companycluded the agreement of 9 10 1962 because he obtained number only an enhancement of Rs.
