THOTA LAKSHMI VENKATA BALAversusMUTTAMSETTI SEETHAMMA

                           [2008] 7 S.C.R. 1172


A                THOTA LAKSHMI VENKATA BALA
                                    V.
                    MUTTAMSETTI SEETHAMMA
                   (Civil Appeal No. 3407 of 2008)

                              MAY 8, 2008
B
        (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)

         Specific Relief Act, 1963:
           Agreement for sale of properties adjusting Sale
C   consideration in lieu of amount borrowed by vendor from
    vendee - Cancellation of, without notice to Vendee - Issuance
    of notice by vendor demanding balance amount of sale
    consideration - Vendee filing suit for specific performace of
    contract - Decreed by trial cow1 - Affirmed by High Court -
D   Correctness of - Held: Correct - On one hand vendor denied
    receiving of any amriunt out of sale consideration from vendee
    on the other she took the stand that only rupees. one lakh out
    of total Sale Consideration amount was received by her- The
    conflicting stand of the vendor rightly rejected by the trial Court
E   as well as the High Court - Vendee has established her claim
    by placing acceptable oral and documentary evidence - In
    the facts and circumstances, trial court rightly granted decree
    for specific performance in favour of vendee on ground of
    failure on the part of vendor to execute the sale deed in terms
F   of the agreement in question - Indian Contract Act, 1872 -
    Agreement - Consideration.
         Appeal - Principles and parameters of disposal -
    Discussed.

G        Appellant allegedly executed an agreement of the sale
    of the property in question for a consideration of
    Rs.1,50,0001- in lieu of discharge of the equivalent amount
    allegedly borrowed by her from respondent earlier for the
    purpose of family expenses. She had executed a General

H                                 1172
  THOTA LAKSHMI VENKATA BALA v. MUTTAMSETTI             1173
                 SEETHAMMA

Power of Attorney in favour of her son to execute the sale A
deed on her behalf, which was cancelled by her. Later,
she issued a notice to respondent demanding a sum of
Rs.50,000/- as balance towards sale consideration for
getting the sale in respect of the property executed and
registered. The respondent did not make payment as B
demanded but filed a suit for specific performance of
Contract of Sale in terms of the agreements executed
earlier. The trial court decreed the suit. Appeal filed
thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed by the High
Court. Hence, the present appeal.                               c
     Dismissing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 Though the appellant had denied
execution of all the documents including the suit
agreement of sale as rightly pointed out by the High Court,
                                                                0
Appellant, D.W.1 in her evidence has specifically stated
that she received Rs.1.00 lakh from the plaintiff.
respondent out of the total sale price of Rs.1,50,000/-. She
also stated that the respondent has to pay the balance of
Rs.50,000/- and interest thereon at 18% p.a. to her. It is      E
relevant to point out that because both the parties are
related, an agreement was executed wherein the appellant
agreed to sell her certain lands which remained unsold.
They also entered into partnership under a partnership
deed in and by which both agreed to do business in
partnership by constructing apartments and sell them to         F
third parties and share profits equally. However, since the
project was not materialized, D.W.1 executed the suit
agreement of sale dated 19.08.1991 in favour of the
respondent admitting that she had received Rs.1,50,000/
- towards sale consideration. In the light of the assertion     G
of the respondent that appellant had changed her stand,
this court verified the recital in the sale agreement as well
as the evidence let in by both parties. Now the appellant
cannot be permitted to go against the contents of a
document. [Para 12] [1179-D-H, 1180-A,B]                        H
    1174       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2008] 7 S.C.R


A      1.2 Though D.W.1 and D.W.2 denied in their evidEmce
  about the execution of the sale agreement and the amount
  mentioned therein, in the light of the recital in the
  agreement of sale as well as Power of Attorney, the stand
  taken by the appellant is liable to be rejected. It is too late
B a day for the appellant to contend that she did not rec:eive
  the entire sale consideration. [Para 12] [1180-8,C]
       1.3 Only in the witness box, the appellant as Cl.W.1
  altogether denied the sale consideration mentioned in the
  sale agreement. On the other hand, her earlier stand was
C that only Rs.1.00 lakh was received and not Rs.1,50,000/-
  as stated in Exh.A1. The conflicting stand of the appellant
  has rightly been rejected by the trial Court as well as the
  High Court. [Para 13] [1180-D,E]
       2. In the case of Madhukar & Ors. vs. Sangram & Ors.,
0
  this Court laid down principles and parameters for the
  disposal of first apj:ieal. It was held that the first appeal is a
  valuable right and parties have a right to be heard both on
  questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first
  appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact
E and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings.
  fn the case on hand, these principles have been fully
  complied with by the High Court. [Para 14] [1180-E,F,,G]
           Madhukar & Ors. vs. Sangram & Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 756
F   - relied on.
        3. On considering the materials, this court is satisfied
  that respondent has established her claim by placing
  acceptable oral and documentary evidence and proved
  that in lieu of debt amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- the appellant
G executed the agreements relating to the suit property.
  This court is also satisfied that it was the respondent
  who failed to execute the sale deed and the trial Court
  has rightly granted a decree for specific performance in
  her favour which was rightly affirmed by the High Court.
H
  THOTA LAKSHMI VENKATA BALA v. MUTTAMSETTI                 1175
         SEETHAMMA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

[Para 15) [1181-A,B]                                                A
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDCTION : Civil Appeal No.
3407 of 2008.
     From the Judgment & Order dated 19.10.2006 of the High
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in A.S. Nos.       B
725 and 1930 of 2000.
     Annam D.N. Rao and Rita Kumari Gupta for the Appellant.
     I. Venkatanarayana, T. Anamika for the Respondent.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                     c
     P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1) Leave granted.
      2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
dated 19.10.2006 in Appeal Suit No. 725 of 2000 whereby the D
High C0urt dismissed the appeal filed by the appollant herein
under Section 96 of the C.P. C. against the judgment and decree
dated 8.2.2000 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Vijayawada in O.S. No. 655 of 1992 directing the appellant
herein to execute and register the sale deed in pursuance of E
the agreement of sale dated 19.8.1991 in favour of the
respondent herein and deliver possession of the plaint schedule
property to her within the prescribed time.
     3) The short facts leading to the filing of the above appeal   F.
as stated in the S.L.P. are as under:-
      On 06.11.1957, the grand father of the appellant herein
settled an extent of Acres 0.62 cents of vacant land situated in
Vidhyadahara puram, Vijaywada with old demarcation No. 48/
2A, Revenue Survey No. 12/23 in favour of the appellant herein. G
The appellant and her husband had borrowed amounts from
the respondent herein from time to time for family expenses
and other purposes which came to Rs.1,50,000/-. When the
respondent demanded the amount, the appellant showed her
inability to pay the said arnount and she made proposal to the H
    1176      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 7 S.C.R.


A   respondent to join as a partner in the proposed partnership firm
    to be commenced by her. The respondent accepted for the same
    and the understanding between them came into writing in the
    year 1988. However, the firm was dissolved before its formation.
    Again, the respondent demanded the money. At that stage, the
B   appellant had executed an agreement of sale in favour of the
    respondent on 19.8.1991 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule
    property to the respondent for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of
    discharge of amount. The appellant had executed a General
    Power of Attorney in favour of her son permitting him to execute
c   the sale deed on her behalf. However, she cancelled the sale
    deed on 06.08.1992 without informing the ·respondent. On
    10.8.1992, the appellant got issued a notice demanding the
    balance amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest@ 18% p.a. from
    30.8.1986 and have the sale executed and registered. The
    respondent responded to the notice through her advocate
0
    denying any liability of making the payment of Rs.50,000/- and
    that time cannot be made the esse;lCe of the contract. The
    respondent herein filed suit for specific performance of contract
    of sale based on the sale agreement dated 19.8.199·1. On
    8.2.2000, the trial Court decreed the suit and the defendant was
E   directed to execute and register the sale deed within the time
    prescribed in the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the
    appellant herein filed Appeal Suit No. 725 of 2000 in the High
    Court. On 19.10.2006, the learned single Judge of the High Court
    dismissed the appeal suit. Against the aforesaid judgment and
F   order of the learned single Judge, the appellant has preferred
    this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
       4) Heard Mr. A.D.N . Rao, learned counsel appearing for
  the appellant and Mr. I. Venkatanarayana, learned senior counsel
G appearing for the respondent.
          5) The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether
    the trial Court is justified in granting decree for spiecific
    performance in respect of the suit property and the High Court
    is right in affirming the same by dismissing the appeal filed by
H   the defendant.
  THOTA LAKSHMI VENKATA BALA v. MUTTAMSETTI                    1177
         SEETHAMMA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

      6) It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant is A
the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of a
settlement deed execut!?d by her grand-father on 06.11.1957
and the same is in her possession and enjoyment. Since the
plaintiff and defendant are related, the defendant had agreed
to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. The defendant B
had borrowed amount from the plaintiff for her family expenses
and other purposes from time to time up to an extent of
Rs.1,50,000/-. When the plaintiff had demanded the said amount
from the defendant, she conveyed her inability to pay the same.
Instead of paying the amount to the plaintiff, the defendant c
requested her to join as a partner in the proposed partnership
firm to be commenced by her. This was accepted by the plaintiff.
At this stage, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had
executed an agreement to sell in her favour on 19.08.1991
agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property. It is the definite
                                                                        0
case of the plaintiff that in the said document, it is clearly recited
that the defondant had received the entire considerc:tion on
instalment basis and further recited that the consideration was
moved from the plaintiff to the defendant. In the sale agreement,
no specific period was mentioned to register the document in
favour of the plaintiff. On the other hand, it was mentioned that E
whenever the plaintiff made a demand to register the document,
the defendant has to register the same. It was her further case
that in spite of several demands, the defendant failed to comply
with the same which necessitated her to file a suit for specific
performance and for possession of the plaint schedule property_ F
      7) The defendant, in her written statement, admitted that
the plaintiff is the wife of the defendant's senior paternal uncle.
Though execution of the agreement dated 19.08.1991 was
admitted, it was stated that she innocently executed the said          G
agreement in favour of the plaintiff at the instance of plaintiff's
son Kanakarao and plaintiff. She denied all the documents such
as agreement dated 30.06.1986, partnership deed dated
25.09.1988 as well as agreement dated 19.08.1991 and special
Power of Attorney deed dated 19.08.1991. It was also her case          H
    1178        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008) 7 S.C.R.


A   that neither the defendant nor her husband ever borrowed any
    amount for any purpose from the plaintiff or her son.
          8) With the above pleadings, the Principal Senior Judge
    settled the following issues for trial:-

B          1.   Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific
                performance of the agreement of sale dt.
                19.08.1991?
           2.   Whether the suit sale agreement dt. 19.08.1991 is
                devoid of consideration as pleaded by the
c               defendant?
           3.   Whether the plaintiff and her son were exercising
                their undue influence over the defendant and her
                husband in connection with the suit transaction?
D          4.   Whether the plaintiff complied her part of the contract
                again~t the defendant?

           5.   Whether the suit sale agreement has stood rescinded
                and cancelled as pleaded by the defendant ?
E          6.   Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the
                plaint schedule property?
           7.   To what relief?
          9) Before the trial Court, namely, Principal Senior Civil
F   Judge, Vijayawada, three witnesses were examined as P.VVs 1
    to 3 and Exh. A 1 to A6 were marked on the side of the plaintiff.
    whereas the defendant herself was examined as D.W.1 besides
    examining D.Ws 2 and 3 and marking documents Exh. 81 to
    86.
G          10) By judgment and decree dated 08.02.2000, on
    consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned
    trial Judge accepted the case of the plaintiff and granted decree
    for specific performance of agreement of sale dated
    19.08.1991.
H
   THOTA LAKSHMI VENKATA BALA v. MUTTAMSETTI                     1179
          SEETHAMMA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

      11) Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree of the trial Court,           A
 the defendant filed an appeal being A.S. No. 725 of 2000 before
 the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Section 96 CPC. The
 learned Single Judge determined the following issues for
 consideration:-
                                                                          8
       1.   Whether the defendant executed Ex.A-1 agreement
            of sale having received the entire sale consideration
            as mentioned therein?

       2.   Whether the plaintiff is not entitled for the discretionary
            relief of specific performance?                               c
      3.    Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs awarded in
            the suit?
      After analyzing the evidence let in by both parties and the
 judgment of the trial Court, the High Court accepted the
                                                                          0
 conclusion and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial
 Court and dismissed the appeal of the defendant.
         12) As mentioned earlier, both parties are related, namely,
  the plaintiff is the paternal aunt of the defendant. Though the
  defendant had denied execution of all the documents including E
  the suit agreement of sale as rightly pointed out by the High
  Court, D.W.1 in her evidence has specifically stated that she
  received Rs.1.00 lakh from the plaintiff out of the total sale price
  of Rs.1,50,000/-. She also stated that the plaintiff has to pay the
  balance of Rs.50,000/- and interest thereon at 18% p.a. to her. F
  It is relevant to point out that because both the plaintiff and
  defendant are related, an agreement Exh.B2 dated 30.08.1986
. was executed wherein the defendant agreed to sell her certain
  lands which remained unsold. They also entered into partnership
  under a partnership deed Exh.B1 dated 25.09.1988 in and by G
  which both agreed to do business in partnership by constructing
  apartments and sell them to third parties and share profits
  equally. Exh. B2 to 85 support the same. However, since the
  project was not materialized, D.W.1 executed the suit agreement
  of sale Exh.A 1 dated 19.08.1991 in favour of the plaintiff H
    1180     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 7 S.C.R.


A admitting that she had received Rs.1,50,000/- towards sale
  consideration. In the light of the assertion of the plaintiff that
  defendant had changed her stand, we also verified the recital in
  the sale agreement as well as the evidence let in by both parties.
  As rightly pointed out by Mr. I. Venkatanarayana, learned senior
B counsel for the respondent, now the defendant cannot be
  permitted to go against the contents of a document, namely,
  Exh.A 1 P.W.1 and her son P.W.2 proved the contents of Exh.A 1
  as well as Exh.82. P.W.3, one. of the attestors of Exh .A 1,
  reiterated the specific stand taken by P.Ws.1 and 2. Though
c D.W.1 and D.W.2 denied in their evidence about the execution              •
  of Exh.A 1 and the amount mentioned therein, in the light of the
  recital in the agreement of sale (Exh.A 1) as well as Power of
  Attorney (Exh.A6), the stand taken by the defendant is liable to
  be rejected. It is too late a day for the defendant to contend that
  the defendant did not receive the entire sale consideration.
0
                                                                        •
        13)Another fallacy in the case of the defendant is that only
  in the witness box, the defendant as D.W.1 altogether denied
  the sale consideration mentioned in Exh.A1. On the othe1r hand,
  her earlier stand was that only Rs.1.00 lakh was received and
E not Rs.1,50,000/- as stated in Exh.A 1. The conflicting stand of
  the defendant has been rightly rejected by the trial Court as well
  as the High Court.
        14) In Madhukar & Ors. vs. Sangram & Ors. , (2001) 4
  SCC 756, three Judges Bench of this Court laid down principles
F and parameters as to how first appeal is to be disposed of. It is
  held that sitting as a Court of first appeal, duty is cast on the
  Court to dea! with all the issues and the evidence led by the
  parties before recording its findings. The principle enunciated
  in this decision is that the first appeal is a valuable right and
G parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on
  facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to
  all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in
  support of the findings. In the case on hand, these principles
  have been fully complied with by the High Court.
H
  THOTA LAKSHMI VEN KATA BALA v. MUTTAMSETTI                1181
         SEETHAMMA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

      15) On considering the materials, we are satisfied that the A
plaintiff has established her claim by placing acceptable oral
and documentary evidence and proved that in lieu of debt
amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- the defendant executed initially
Exh .82 and later Exh.A 1, agreements relating to the suit
property. We are also satisfied that it was the defendant who       s
failed to execute the sale deed and the trial Court has rightly
granted a decree for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff
which was affirmed by the High Court.
     16) In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any
merit in the appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed with       C
no order as to costs.
S.K.S.                                      Appeal dismissed.