THOTA LAKSHMI VENKATA BALA versus MUTTAMSETTI SEETHAMMA

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 1172 · Decided: 08-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 1172 
THOTA LAKSHMI VENKATA BALA 
V. 
MUTTAMSETTI SEETHAMMA 
(Civil Appeal No. 3407 of 2008) 
MAY 8, 2008 
(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. 
G 
H 
Appeal - Principles and parameters of disposal -
Discussed. 
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 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.