*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY + Second Appeal No.78 of 2011 %09.11.2011 #Smt.D.Vijayalakshmi ..Appellant. Vs. $T.K.Vijay Kumar. ..Respondent. !Counsel for the Appellant : Sri A.Ananda Rao ^Counsel for the Respondent : Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar <Gist : >Head Note: ?Cases Referred: [1] AIR 1934 Privy Council 58 2AIR 1969 AP 88 3AIR 2000 SC 426 (1) 4(1982) 1 Supreme Court Cases 4 5 AIR 1936 PC 70 6 (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 697 7 (2005) 2 SCC 217 8 (1999) 3 SCC 573 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.78 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The plaintiff in O.S.No.1203 of 1996 on the file of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is the appellant. She filed the suit against the respondent for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 01.09.1993. It was pleaded that the respondent, who is the owner of the suit schedule plot, offered to sell it to the husband of the appellant, for a sum of Rs.97,500/- and that an agreement was executed on 01.09.1993, entire consideration has been paid, and that the possession of the plot was delivered on the date of agreement itself. According to the terms of agreement, the respondent was under obligation to procure the clearance from the authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (for short ‘the Act’), within four months. In the event of his failure to do so, the husband of the appellant was entitled to procure the same, by deducting a sum of Rs.2,000/-, from the consideration. Link documents were also said to have been delivered. The husband of the appellant is said to have died on 01.09.1993. Thereafter, she got issued a legal notice dated 27.08.1996, calling upon the respondent to execute the sale deed. A reply was issued by the respondent, denying the execution of agreement of sale. According to him, the husband of the appellant gave an amount of Rs.67,000/- to one Mr.A.C.Krishnaiah and that as a security for repayment of the amount together with interest, the document was obtained. Stating that the version of the respondent is not correct and that he is under obligation to execute the sale deed, the respondent filed the suit. The respondent filed a written statement reiterating the contents of the reply got issued by him. Through its judgment, dated 02.07.2008, the trial Court decreed the suit. The respondent filed A.S.No.227 of 2008 in the Court of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was also allowed on 19.10.2010. Hence, this second appeal. Sri A.Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that once the respondent admitted the execution of the agreement, marked as Ex.A.1, hardly there exists any alternative for the Courts, except to decree the suit. He contends that the respondent was precluded from adducing any oral evidence, contrary to the contents of Ex.A.1. Learned counsel further submits that the letters, marked as Exs.B.1 to B.7, addressed to the respondents were in relation to a different transaction, and though the trial Court has taken correct view of the matter, the lower Appellate Court reversed the decree on certain assumptions, without proper basis. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon various judgments, in support of the contentions urged by him. Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that his client has adduced cogent evidence, in support of his plea that Ex.A.1 was in relation to a loan transaction between the husband of the appellant and one Sri A.C.Krishnaiah and that the feeble attempt made by the appellant to overcome the purport of Exs.B.1 to B.7, did not fructify. He contends that the trial Court ignored some fatal defects in the case of the appellant, when it decreed the suit and that the lower Appellate Court has corrected the error. Learned counsel submits that there is a serious flaw on the part of the appellant, in as much as she did not enter the witness box and that the evidence of her G.P.A., cannot absolve her from proving her case. He further submits that PW.1, the G.P.A. of the appellant was the person behind the entire episode from the beginning and the plea put forward by him that there existed another transaction of loan was not at all proved. He contends that the discretionary relief of specific performance cannot be granted, when there is serious doubt as to the bona fides about the transaction. He too cited precedents to buttress his contentions. The suit filed by the appellant was the one for specific performance of agreement of sale. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract of sale dated 01.09.1993? ii) Whether suit transaction is mortgage? iii) Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? iv) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of Section 61 of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act? v) Whether the suit document is a mortgage? vi) Whether A.C.Krishnaiah is original debtor is a necessary and property to the suit? On behalf of the appellant, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were filed. On behalf of the defendant, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.13 were filed. The suit was decreed and in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the lower Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: i) Whether suit transaction is mortgage or an agreement of sale? ii) Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties inclusive of A.C.Krishnaiah? iii) Whether trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in lieu of Section 61 of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act? iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract? It allowed the appeal and reversed the decree passed by the trial Court. Ex.A.1 was executed by the respondent in faovur of the husband of the appellant. The recitals therein are to the effect that the entire sale consideration of Rs.97,000/- is paid, possession of the property is delivered and that the appellant must execute the sale deed within four months after obtaining the clearance from the authorities under the Act. It was also agreed that, in case the appellant fails, or is unable, to obtain the clearance within four months, he shall be entitled to cancel the agreement and refund the consideration. Another contingency is that if the agreement is not cancelled as provided for, it shall be open to the husband of the appellant, to obtain clearance, and press for execution of the sale deed, and that he shall be entitled to deduct a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards expenditure therefor. Hardly within two months from the date of agreement, the husband of the appellant is said to have died. Before instituting the suit, the appellant got issued a notice, dated 22.08.1996, requiring the respondent to execute the sale deed. It is pertinent to mention that she did not state that the clearance was obtained by her as provided for under the agreement. The respondent got issued a reply, dated 27.08.1996, marked as Ex.B.3, disputing the very character of the transaction. According to him, one Sri A.C.Krishnaiah, one of his friends, approached one Sri D.P.Sastri, PW.1 to lend amount and that on insistence for offering security, a document stating to be of mortgage transaction, was entered into duly depositing title deeds, in good faith and that the amount covered by the mortgage transaction was only Rs.67,500/-. He gave other particulars also. A re-joinder dated 29.08.1996 marked as Ex.A.4, was issued by the appellant, denying the contents of Ex.A.3. Ultimately, the suit came to be filed. The plaintiff virtually reproduced the contents of Ex.A.2, the legal notice, with slight elaboration. In his written statement, apart from reiterating his stand taken in Ex.A.3, the respondent stated that several persons associated with the transaction have addressed him the letters, pressing for repayment of the amount and the said letters were taken on record as Exs.B.1 to B.7. One of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that once the execution of a document, namely Ex.A.1, is admitted by the respondent, it was not permissible for him to adduce any oral evidence, to the contrary. In support of his contention, he cited the judgment of the privy counsel, in Baraboni Coal Concern v. The Servitors and Shebaits of Sree Sree Gopinath Jiu, Gokulananda Mohanta Thakur[1], Miryala Venkateswarlu v. Battula Venkata Peraiah and Venkateswarlu and Co.[2], and Ishwar Dass Jain (dead) through LRs., v. Sohan Lal (dead) by L.Rs.[3]. The plea is referable to Section 92 of the Evidence Act. The provision mandates that if there exists a written document, signed by the parties, oral evidence, contradicting terms thereof, cannot be permitted. The Section connotes a small fragment of the principle of estoppel. However, a distinction needs to be maintained as to the disputing contents, on the one hand, and explaining the purport of the document or the manner in which the parties understood, the same, on the other hand. Even while admitting that what is contained in a document is true, a party can explain the circumstances or the objective with which the document was executed. It is a different matter as to whether the plea so raised is substantiated at all. It is not uncommon that a transaction which purports to be of a particular category, is entered into with a totally different objective. A ready example for this can be a conditional sale; or sale with a condition to repurchase. Much would depend upon the understanding of the parties and many a time the nomenclature of the document or language employed in it may not reflect the true intention of the parties. It is for this reason that in Smt.Gangabai v. Smt.Chhabubai[4], the Supreme Court held that the bar contained under Section 92 would operate mostly against a party, who relies upon it and not against the one, who has a different understanding of the matter, even while admitting the execution thereof. The relevant portion reads as under: “….It is clear to us that the bar imposed by sub-section (1) of Section 92 applies only when a party seeks to rely upon the document embodying the terms of the transaction. In that event, the law declares that the nature and intent of the transaction must be gathered from the terms of the document itself and no evidence of any oral agreement or statement can be admitted as between the parties to such document for the purpose of contradicting or modifying its terms. The sub- section is not attracted when the case of a party is that the transaction recorded in the document was never intended to be acted upon at all between the parties and that the document is a sham. Such a question arises when the party asserts that there was a different transaction altogether and what is recorded in the document was intended to be of no consequence whatever. For that purpose oral evidence is admissible to show that the document executed was never intended to operate as an agreement but that some other agreement altogether, not recorded in the document, was entered into between the parties (Tyagaraja Mudaliyar v. Vedathanni) [5] …” To the same effect, is the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ishwar Dass Jain’s case (3 supra) and R.Janakiraman v. State represented by Inspector of Police[6]. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was not at all open to the respondent, to take any plea, contrary to the words contained in Ex.A.1. In his written statement, the respondent stated that as many as 7 letters were written to him by PWs.1 and 2 and DW.2 and other persons, pressing him to ensure payment under Ex.A.1. He has also taken plea that all the persons, who were associated with the transaction are necessary parties to the suit. The relevant portion reads: “The defendant further submits that there was no intention to transfer the title or to sell the suit schedule property and on the other hand the perfect understanding between the parties was that the suit property should remain as a security alone for the payment of the debt borrowed by A.C.Krishnaiah, as such the entire adverse allegations made in the plaint are false and denied in toto. The defendant further submits that the letter correspondence after the transaction clearly goes to prove the nature of transaction vide through letters dated 2.2.1995, 27.10.1994, 27.06.1995, 28.04.1994, 27.7.1995 etc., written by Mediator = D.Krishna Murthy demanding repayment of the debt addressed to the defendant and threatening intended action in the court of law for specific performance under the alleged sale agreement for the suit property.” Though rejoinder was filed by the appellant with the leave of the trial Court, the additional facts pleaded by the respondent were not properly rebutted. Now, it needs to be seen as to how the facts pleaded by the respective parties were proved. The appellant die not enter the witness box. Though she presented the plaint by herself, she executed a G.P.A., in favour of Sri D.Krishna Murthy, PW.1. The law no doubt permits institution of proceedings by a person, through a general power of attorney or an agent as provided for, under Order III C.P.C. However, the power of an agent so permitted to depose as a witness, is restricted to acts done or steps taken by him, in exercise of power granted and not in relation to the acts performed by the principal himself. In Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Limited[7], the Supreme Court took note of the divergence of opinion expressed by various Courts on this aspect, reformed to the following observations made in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao[8] : “Where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct…” The Supreme Court held, “13. Order 3 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. empower the holder of power of attorney to “act” on behalf of the principal. In our view the word “act” employed in Order 3 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. confines only to in respect of “act” done by the power-of- attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument. The term “acts” would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power-of-attorney holder has rendered some “acts” in pursuance of power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter of which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined.” In the instant case, the principal did not enter the witness box, and PW.1 –the power of attorney, was nowhere in the picture throughout the transaction. The result is that the case of the appellant was not at all proved as required under law. The relief of specific performance is equitable discretionary in nature. It can be granted only when the Court is satisfied that not only the plaintiff has proved the agreement, but also that equities are in his favour. Even where, the transaction is proved, the Court can decline the relief in case it finds any abnormalities in the transaction or feels that equity lies in denying the relief. The discretion no doubt has to be guided by proper reasons and cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner. In the instant case, this Court finds several abnormalities. Whenever the entire consideration is paid under an agreement of sale and the possession of the property is delivered, the purchaser generally would not feel the necessity to file a suit for specific performance and he would press the plea under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act into service, in the event of steps being taken, for recovery of the property by the owner thereof. The appellant did not face any such action from the respondents. Secondly, the extraordinary freedom given to the respondent herein under Ex.A.1, to straight away cancel the agreement and refund the amount, in the event of clearance being not obtained within four months connotes that the predominant objection under the transaction is to ensure repayment of the amount paid under it. Thirdly, assuming that the transaction covered by Ex.A.1, is an agreement of sale, pure and simple, and that the appellant was entitled to seek the relief of specific performance, she was required to obtain clearance under the Act, may be by deducting a sum of Rs.2,000/- from the consideration. The relevant clause reads as under: “…In case the vendor fails to pay Rs.97,500/- within four months to the vendee and cancels this agreement, the vendee is at liberty to ask for specific performance of this agreement to try for urban land ceiling permission for himself for which the vendor has to pay Rs.2,000/- towards expenditure for getting permission.” This constitutes an important obligation on the part of the appellant. Neither in Ex.A.2 - notice, nor in the plaint, the appellant stated that she was or is ready and willing to perform her part of the obligation. The principle underlying Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act gets attracted. The bar imposed under that provision against granting the relief of specific performance operates. This Court does not find any serious error in the judgment rendered by the lower Appellate Court. On the other hand, it has analyzed each and every aspect in detail and arrived at a just and proper conclusion. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated: 09.11.2011 L.R. copy to be marked. GJ [1] AIR 1934 Privy Council 58 [2] AIR 1969 AP 88 [3] AIR 2000 SC 426 (1) [4] (1982) 1 Supreme Court Cases 4 [5] AIR 1936 PC 70 [6] (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 697 [7] (2005) 2 SCC 217 [8] (1999) 3 SCC 573