TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the said agreement of sale i.e ₹ 45,000/-. The relevant terms of the said agreement are as under : Whereas the first party is the absolute owner of house bearing No. 148, 8th cross N.R. colony, Bangalore- 19 more fully described in the schedule hereunder, having acquired the same under registered gift deed, executed by Mrs. B.N. Vijaya Deva. Whereas the second party has offered to buy and the first party has agreed to sell to the second party the schedule property for a sum of ₹ 45,000/- (Rupees fourty five thousand only.) The first party hereby agreed to sell the schedule property to the second party on the following terms and conditions. a) A sum of ₹ 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) has been paid this day by the second party to the first party which he hereby acknowledges out of the said price of Rupees Forty Five thousand. b) A further sum of ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in respect of the balance of the price shall be paid by the second party to the first party within one year from this date, i.e., 11-5-79. c) The remaining balance of the consideration for the sale, i.e., ₹ 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an agreement for loan. It was urged that having regard to the fact that diverse amounts had been taken by the appellant from the respondents as also the fact that similar agreements for sale were entered into by and between the appellant and other persons categorically demonstrate that he had merely borrowed some amount and the purported agreement for sale was not meant to be acted upon. The learned counsel urged that in view of the default clauses contained in the agreement, the same could not have been construed to be an agreement for sale. Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on Dadarao and Another v. Ramrao and Others [(1999) 8 SCC 416]. In any event, it was urged that it is not a fit case where the Courts below should have exercised their discretionary jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, supported the judgment. Original relationship of the parties as landlord and tenant is not in dispute. The fact that the appellant intended to convey his right, title and interest in respect of the said property is also not in dispute. As noticed hereinbefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreement for sale was not meant to be acted upon cannot be accepted. If the said contention is accepted, the damages quantified in the event of any breach on the part of Respondent No. 1 cannot be explained. It is clear that in the event of commission of any breach on the part of respondent, the appellant was entitled to forfeit the entire amount of advance. The very fact that the parties intentionally incorporated such default clause clearly goes to show that they intended to lay down their rights and obligations under the contract explicitly. They, therefore, knew the terms thereof. They understood the same. There is no uncertainty or vagueness therein. The decision of this Court in Dadarao (supra), whereupon reliance has been placed by Mr. Chandrashekhar is wholly misplaced. The term of the agreement therein was absolutely different. We need not dilate on the said decision in view of the fact that in a subsequent decision of this Court in P.D' Souza v. Shondrilo Naidu [(2004) 6 SCC 649], it has been held to have been rendered per incuriam, stating: 34. In Dadarao whereupon Mr Bhat placed strong reliance, the binding decision of M.L. Devender Singh4 was not noticed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quantified damages or, as the defendants would have it, interest payable on ₹ 1000. 7. If the agreement had not stipulated as to what is to happen in the event of the sale not going through, then perhaps the plaintiff could have asked the Court for a decree of specific performance but here the parties to the agreement had agreed that even if the seller did not want to execute the sale deed he would only be required to refund the amount of ₹ 1000 plus pay ₹ 500 in addition thereto. There was thus no obligation on Balwantrao to complete the sale transaction. 36. Apart from the fact that the agreement of sale did not contain a similar clause, Dadarao does not create a binding precedent having not noticed the statutory provisions as also an earlier binding precedent. We may furthermore notice that recently in Jai Narain Parasrampuria (Dead) and Others v. Pushpa Devi Saraf and Others [(2006) 7 SCC 756], this Court categorically opined that a stipulation in regard to payment of damages by one party of the contract to the other does not establish that the same was not an agreement for sale stating: 59. One of the learned Judges of the High Court also held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en made out to interfere therewith by this Court. Submission of Mr. Chandrashekhar to the effect that having regard to the rise in price of an immovable property in Bangalore, the Court ought not to have exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act is stated to be rejected. We have noticed hereinbefore that the appellant had entered into an agreement for sale with others also. He had, even after 11.5.1979, received a sum of ₹ 5,000/- from the respondent. He with a view to defeat the lawful claim of Respondent No. 1 had raised a plea of having executed a prior agreement for sale in respect of self-same property in favour of his son-in-law who had never claimed any right thereunder or filed a suit for specific performance of contract. The Courts below have categorically arrived at a finding that the said contention of the appellant was not acceptable. Rise in the price of an immovable property by itself is not a ground for refusal to enforce a lawful agreement of sale. [See P.D' Souza (supra) and Jai Narain Parasrampuria (supra)] For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
