TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1095
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or and Advocate of late K. Basavaraja Urs. 3. The property was let out to plaintiff No.2 in the year 1969 by late K. Basavaraja Urs and defendant No.1. Late K. Basavaraja Urs and defendant No.1 sold the adjoining property to various persons vide registered sale deeds. Late K. Basavaraja Urs offered to sell the suit scheduled property to the plaintiffs. On 24.4.1979, late K. Basavaraja Urs, represented by his son, i.e., defendant No.1 as power of attorney, entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/out of which a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/was received on the same day. The defendant No.1 agreed to obtain a clearance certificate under section 230A of the Income Tax Act as also under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The plaintiffs continued to have the possession of suit property in part performance of the agreement dated 24.04.1979 and stopped paying rent. 4. The defendant No.1 always ensured the plaintiffs to execute the registered sale deed in terms of suit agreement after obtaining a clearance certificate from the Income Tax Department and under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. On 1.6.1993, defendant No.1 received the balance sal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not a party to the suit agreement in his individual capacity. They were required to obtain an income tax clearance certificate and after that to execute the registered sale deed, in which they have failed. Late K. Basavaraja Urs owned vast landed and house properties at Bangalore and Mysore. They were statutorily bound to obtain a clearance certificate from the Income Tax Department, and as they failed to obtain it, they cannot be permitted to contend that suit is barred by limitation. The High Court has affirmed the findings of the trial court. 10. The High Court has disbelieved the case set up by defendant No.1 that he had put his signatures on blank paper. Plaintiff No.2 was appointed as Judge of the High Court during September 1978; therefore, on 24.4.1979, there was no fiduciary relationship between them. Plaintiffs have also produced the original stamped receipt dated 1.6.1983 (Exhibit P19) admitting the receipt of remaining Rs. 50,000 by defendants No.1 in which a sum of Rs. 42,000 was paid in cash and Rs. 8,000 was paid by cheque. Defendant No.1 had admitted his signatures on Exh. P19. Defendant No.1 also admitted that he had encashed the cheque. The plea of the 1st defen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s has supported the judgment and decree passed by the courts below. It is further submitted that no case for interference is made out in the appeals given the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below. The appeals deserve to be dismissed. 15. We deem it appropriate to place on record that learned counsel for the parties had taken time to file the compromise, if reached. We have been informed that no compromise could be arrived at between the parties. Be that as it may. We proceed to decide the appeals on merits. 16. The concurrent findings are recorded as to receipt of consideration and execution of the agreement to sell. There is no doubt about it that M.P. Chandrakanta Raj Urs (Plaintiff No.2) was earlier a counsel and legal advisor to K. Basavaraja Urs, but when the agreement had been executed, he was not a lawyer and became a Judge of the High Court. There are concurrent findings recorded concerning the execution of the agreement, and it has been rightly found established that signatures were not obtained on blank papers. There is concurrent finding recorded by the courts below that consideration has been paid. Thus, no case for interference is made out in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion shall unless the context otherwise requires to include their heirs, assigns, administrators, successors and legal representatives of the other part. WHEREAS the VENDOR is the absolute owner of the property at 1B, Palace Road, Bangalore - 560001, an whereas the VENDOR is desirous of disposing of the said house together with the plot of land, fixtures, fittings, etc. of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) and the PURCHASERS are agreeable to buy the same at the said price. NOW THEREFORE, THIS DEED/ WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS: (1) That the VENDOR shall free from encumbrances the said property situated at q-B Palace Road, Bangalore - 560 001, and the PURCHASER shall buy the same at the said prices and on the conditions hereinafter mentioned; (2) That the said property consists of a single-storeyed house with the following boundaries:- On the EAST: No.1-C On the WEST: Vacant land of VENDOR On the NORTH: Storm Drain On the SOUTH: By Common Road (3) That the consideration of the house shall be payable as follows:- A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) paid on the date of this agreement and the balance of Rs. 5,40,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tle of K.B. Ram Chandra Raj Urs in the property and also the fact that it was a joint family property. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have not taken the plea of estoppel, and now the case was set up that property had been sold by defendant No.1 in his capacity without any such plea in the plaint. Thus, plaintiff No.2 was well aware of the fact as to the title of K.B. Ramchandra Raj Urs in the property and that late K. Basavaraja Urs did not exclusively own the property. 21. The plea of estoppel in view the decision of this court in R.S. Madanappa (deceased) v. Chandramma & Anr., (supra) is not attracted, in which the Court has held that estoppel by conduct could not arise when a person concerned knew the right position relating to the title in property in his possession, he could not plead that he was induced to hold an erroneous belief because of the conduct of real owner of that property. This court has observed thus: "6. We will consider the question of estoppel first. The conduct of the first defendant from which the learned counsel wants us to draw the inference of estoppel consists of her attitude when she was served with a notice by the plaintiff, her general attitude re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng with other properties by Maddanappa in favour of Defendants 3 to 8. The attestation of the will by the first defendant and her husband, would no doubt affix them with the knowledge of what Maddanappa was doing, but it cannot operate as estoppel against them and in favour of Defendants 3 to 8 or even in favour of Maddanappa. The will could take effect only upon the death of Maddanappa and, therefore, no interest in the property had at all accrued to Defendants 3 to 8, even on the date of the suit. So far as Maddanappa is concerned, he, as already stated, knew the true position and, therefore, could not say that an erroneous belief about his title to the properties was created in his mind by reason of the conduct of the first defendant and her husband in attesting the document. Apart from that, there is nothing on the record to show that by reason of the conduct of the first defendant Maddanappa altered his position to his disadvantage. 8. Mr. Venkatarangaiengar, however, says that subsequent to the execution of the will, he had effected further improvements in the properties and for this purpose, spent his own moneys. According to him, he would not have done so in the absence ....