BASAVARAJEGOWDA Vs. N. VASANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs regular first appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance and decreeing the suit for refund of the earnest money paid under the agreement of sale.

(2.) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.

(3.) AFTER service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement traversing the allegations made in the plaint. The defendant has denied the execution of the agreement of sale. The defendant has denied the allegations made in para 3 of the plaint that ever since from the date of the agreement, the plaintiff was ready and wiling to perform his part of the contract and was ready with the balance sale consideration. She admitted that the sale transaction shall be completed within 90 days. She further contends that when in the agreement itself it is mentioned that in case the transaction is not completed within 90 days, the agreement automatically stands cancelled and the advance sale consideration is also forfeited, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. In substance, the defendant has denied all the allegations in the plaint. Thereafter, in para 12 she has set out her defence. It is her specific case that she had a legal necessity i.e., to transplant a kidney of her husband and so entered into a written agreement with the plaintiff in order to sell 2 acres of alienated land in Sy. No. 95/P1 comprising in it a Brick industry, Kilon, Borewell, Office Room etc. The said Sy. No. 95/P1 in toto measures an extent of 5 acres, out of which 2 acres of land was converted for non -agricultural purpose and the remaining 3 acres still remains as agricultural land. The agreement entered into was only in respect of 2 acres of land in the said survey number, as she was in urgent need of money. Therefore, 90 days is the time stipulated for completing the sale transaction. The defendant was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contractual obligation. It is the plaintiff, who did not come forward to perform his part of the contract as he was in search of other buyers for higher price. The plaintiff was not in a position to arrange the balance sale consideration within 90 days from the date of the agreement. The defendant has made financial commitments with other persons believing that she would get the balance sale consideration mentioned in the agreement of sale. As the plaintiff did not turn up and perform his part of the contract, the defendant is put into loss and her reputation was damaged and she was unable to meet the expenses towards the kidney transplantation of her husband. Therefore, the very purpose of selling 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 95/P1 of the defendant became futile. The husband of the defendant was suffering from kidney failure and he needed regular dialysis. As he lost his precious opportunity of having the transplantation, the plaintiff has to pay damages. The defendant has got 2 children who have no job. The defendant is mainly depending upon the earnings of the Brick Industry. Out of the earnings of the said factory her husband has to undergo dialysis on alternative days. For each dialysis, the defendant has to spend Rs. 2,000/ - to Rs. 3,000/ -. If the defendant is called upon to execute the sale deed, she will loose the property and great hardship will result to her, which cannot be compensated in any other terms. The written statement was also amended raising pleas under Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.