High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. E. Ahobala Rao.. Defendant - C.S.NO.714 OF 1989  RD-TN 443 (8 July 2002)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
C.S.NO.714 OF 1989
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
rep. by its Manager .. Plaintiff Vs.
E. Ahobala Rao .. Defendant For Plaintiff : Mr.M.B.Raghavan
For Defendant : Mr.R.Krishnamurthy,
for M/s.D'Souza and Radhakrishnan :JUDGMENT
This suit has been filed for a direction to the defendant to specifically perform the agreement for the sale of the five flats and other reliefs.
2. The averments in the plait are as follows: The defendant was a building promoter and was carrying on business in construction of buildings in Madras City as well as other places including the city of Hyderabad. The plaintiff has its head office at Madras and has Regional, Divisional and Branch Offices all over India. In order to accommodate their officers working in their offices in Hyderabad, the plaintiff was on the look out for the purchase of residential apartments and had advertised for the same. The defendant offered residential flats in the building known as "Venkataramana Apartments" which was then being constructed by him. After discussions, the plaintiff by letter dated 17.5.1982 offering to purchase the said flats. The defendant by letter dated 21.5.1982 offered to sell the flats and gave full particulars about the same. The plaintiff by its letter dated 21.7.82 accepted the offer and communicated its approval for the rates as mentioned in the plaint and the defendant also agreed for the same. The defendant informed the plaintiff that the construction of the flats will be completed and possession will be given by the end of December, 1982 and undertook to complete the formalities for execution of sale agreement within one week thereafter. The plaintiff paid to the defendant a sum of Rs.7 lakhs as advance by cheque. Inspite of repeated assurances by the defendants, the flats were not ready. In view of the inordinate delay in construction of the flats, a meeting was held at the plaintiff's registered office on 28.8.1984 with the defendant to discuss the matters. The minutes of the meeting has been signed by the defendant and the Officers of the plaintiff. Though the defendant was claiming that the building was ready for occupation as early as in January, 1983, separate electricity meters for each flats were not installed. The plaintiff wrote letter on 13.9.84 calling upon the defendant to produce bills to support his claim for expenditure towards amenities. Again on 26.11.1984, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant complaining that that electricity connection was not provided and it was also pointed out that water supply was not available in the building as the Municipality cut off the supply. The defendant sent a reply containing false allegations. A suitable rejoinder was sent by the plaintiff. The plaintiff expressed its readiness and willingness to pay the amounts due on production of the bills and proceed with the registration of the sale deed and take possession. Inspite of the letter by the plaintiff, the defendant could not complete the construction within the time agreed by him. In order to avoid any delay the plaintiff sent a draft sale deed and asking the defendant to obtain clearance certificate under the Income Tax Act and it was requested that necessary intimation should be sent on obtaining the Income Tax clearance certificate to enable the plaintiff to get the sale deed ready for registration and the finalization of the matter should be made within a reasonable time and there was no reply for the same. The plaintiff sent a lawyer notice calling upon the defendant to fulfill his part of the obligation and the defendant sent a reply setting up false claim and the same was refused by the plaintiff by its letter dated 15.10.86. The balance amount payable by the plaintiff in respect of the said 5 flats is Rs.12,18,741/- and they were ready and willing to pay on fulfillment of the obligations by the defendant. A notice, dated 2.12.86 was sent by the plaintiff's counsel to the defendant to give possession of the property and to execute the sale deed. The defendant sent a reply offering to refund the advance. There was again a discussion at Madras and the defendant agreed to execute the sale deed and also to furnish the details and vouchers for the expenses incurred for providing amenities and also the defendant agreed to provide encumbrance certificate up to date. As no further action was taken, the plaintiff again sent another letter on 24.9.87. The plaintiff sent the details of the advance paid for the purpose of income tax clearance certificate. As no action was taken, the plaintiff sent another notice on 5.5.88. A reply was received stating that the defendant had applied for clearance certificate. Without fulfilling the conditions of the contract and providing the flats with water supply, electricity and other amenities, etc. the defendant on 3.10.88 sent a copy of the income tax clearance certificate and requested the plaintiff to pay the balance sum and complete the sale. The defendant informed the plaintiff that huge sums of money are due to the electricity department and that it should be settled by the plaintiff immediately. The plaintiff could not pay the balance sale price in the absence of amenities. The plaintiff again sent a letter to the defendant for a joint inspection of the flats to find out whether any amenities were provided as agreed to. There was no reply from the defendant. The defendant sent a reply on 13.1.89 to the effect that he need not be present for inspection of the flats and that vouchers had been shown to the plaintiff's officers and that it was for the plaintiff to deal with the electricity authorities regarding the dues to the department. The defendant sent xerox copies of receipts for payment made to the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board alleging that the payments were made by the plaintiff, which is not true and also enclosed xerox copies of letter dated 20.1.84 addressed to the plaintiff by the Electricity Board. With a view to avoid further delay, the plaintiff caused an inspection of the flats to be made by an independent valuer and it was found that power supply to the flats have been disconnected and a huge amount of Rs.33,210/- was due to the Electricity Board. The plaintiff by letter dated 6.4.1985 set out all the facts and pointed out if the defendant failed to fulfill the conditions within two weeks of receipt of the said letter, the plaintiff would be constrained to move the court for specific performance of the contract. The defendant sent a reply stating that the plaintiff had committed breach of contract and that he was not bound by the valuation done by the independent valuer; that if the plaintiff was interested in buying the flat, the price had to be negotiated afresh and the earlier offer was not valid. The defendant was proceeding to sell the flats to third parties. Though the plaintiff is ready to pay the balance amount, the defendant did not produce receipts for the expenditure for providing amenities which he agreed to furnish. Being a public sector undertaking the bills, vouchers for amenities are essential for completion of records and payments could be effected only on the basis of the said documents. There is no question of any fresh negotiation for price and the defendant is bound to convey the flats on the agreed price. Therefore, the plaintiff has no other option except to file a suit for specific performance to have the sale deed for the flats and the undivided share in the land duly executed and registered in its favour in accordance with law and for possession of the property. The time for performance of the contract was extended from time to time and finally by notice dated 6.4.1989 and hence, the suit has been filed for a decree as asked for.
3. The averments in the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:
The defendant was the owner of the land in Raj Bhavan Road, Hyderabad, where a multi storyed building was under construction in 1982. The defendant gave an offer to the plaintiff to sell the flat at Rs.225/- per sq.ft. on the plinth area calculated outer column to outer column and they offered to make the flats ready for occupation by the end of September, 1982 in all respects. The price calculated did not include electrical fittings, fans, etc. which were to be on the account of the plaintiff. After discussions, the plaintiff accepted the defendant's offer. The defendant never realized the significance of the vague expressions contained in the letter dated 21.7.1982 and thought it to be affirm offer and therefore on 22.7.82 the defendant wrote to the plaintiff thanking the plaintiff for accepting the defendant's offer. The plaintiff sent a draft sale agreement and on going through the same the defendant found that it did not reflect the terms properly. The defendant received a copy of letter dated 16.2.1982 addressed to M/s. J.J. Associates stating that Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board had written to the plaintiff on ½.2.83 complaining that space had not been allotted to erect equipment of the electricity board. The plaintiff had not cooperated to finalize the issue. The defendant stipulated that the plaintiff should pay proportionately for the lift, borewell, motor, etc. also required by the plaintiff as additional facility. The defendant wanted the plaintiff to send a draft sale deed for certificate under Sec.230A of Income Tax Act. The plaintiff informed the defendant that the plaintiff was interested in purchasing all the flats and the defendant was expressing willingness to sell the whole building except the flat which had already been occupied by a third person prior to the agreement with the plaintiff. On 28.8.84, there was a meeting between the plaintiff's officers and the defendant. Though the flats were ready in 1982, the transaction was delayed by the plaintiff. In the meeting, the parties agreed the terms as mentioned in the written statement. It is to be noted that even as early as on 19.8.83 the defendant wanted the plaintiff to share the expenses for bore well pump, transformer, etc. and the plaintiff had been putting off decision. It was only in the meeting dated 28.8.84 the plaintiff communicated its acceptance for meeting 5/12 costs of such amenities provided by the defendant. The defendant has incurred expenses for the list, transformer, bore well, etc. in the anticipation of the plaintiff approval and in 1984 a year thereafter the plaintiff wanted to go through the bills showing the cost incurred by the defendant in respect of amenities for the quantum of the plaintiff's share to be settled. The defendant had no other option but to accept the dictations of the plaintiff as he had been tied up with the plaintiff and had received advance earlier and the plaintiff also tempted the defendant with an offer to purchase all the flats except one in the complex. The defendant informed the plaintiff that the building had been completed as early as in January 1983 and registration of the sale deed should not be delayed any further. The plaintiff again wrote to the defendant calling for the photo copies of the available bills relating to the amenities provided and stating that it had arranged with M/ s. Narendra Associates to measure the pheripheral land in the presence of the defendant's architect M/s. JJ Associates and had found the same as 2835 sq.ft. Entrance and the plaintiff informed the transformer had not been installed in the premises and wanted the defendant to arrange the installation. The plaintiff accepted that the transformer had been installed, but the electricity connection to the building was pending. The plaintiff wanted the defendant to take necessary action by advising the architects to meet the concerned officials in the electricity department for early connection. The plaintiff noted that water works department had adjusted a sum of Rs.5000/- towards arrears of charges from the Deposit money and that in the absence of any deposit Municipal water connection had been out. The premises was not fit for occupation without water connection and therefore, the plaintiff wanted the defendant to take immediate steps. The plaintiff wanted water connection but would not pay for that. The plaintiff declined to share with the defendant electricity and water charges. The plaintiff wanted separate meters for all the flats and the defendant had to obtain it on plaintiff's account. In view of the plaintiff not occupying the building for the past 1-1/2 years, the defendant had to incur numerous losses. The plaintiff was also aware how difficult it was to obtain a transformer and that it was with great difficulty the defendant had obtained one. On 1.4.85, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant with reference to its letter dated 10.12.84 stating that the plaintiff had received information about the installation of transformer and power connection and Municipal water connection. Now, the defendant having completed the formalities, the plaintiff went back to the expenses incurred as stated in the plaintiff's letter dated 13.9.1984 and again wanted to have whatever bills available so that claims could be finalized. The defendant had discussions with the plaintiff. The plaintiff wanted to have encumbrance certificate from 1982 to 15.5.85. The defendant informed the plaintiff that the draft sale deed sent by the plaintiff was not acceptable as it varied from the earlier approved draft. If there were none in the premises the plaintiff could have contacted the defendant atleast over phone to arrange for inspection. The defendant claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of the expenses incurred by the defendant by way of compensation because such expenses were only due to the inordinate and inexcusable delay on the part of the plaintiff. The defendant was ready and willing to accept the earlier draft sale deed with alterations and it was not known why the plaintiff should alter it without the defendant's consent and take the attitude that the defendant should take it or leave it. The defendant reiterated his willingness to complete registration. The plaintiff should compensate the defendant for the expenses incurred. The plaintiff even at that stage had not communicated the acceptance of the pheripheral area, by its higher authority. The defendant therefore expressed his readiness to return back the advance and to relieve himself from the obligation if any to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not answer further. The plaintiff requested the defendant to call on the plaintiff on 4.8.87. The defendant did the same. A copy of the sale deed was handed over to the plaintiff. The entire cost was fixed at Rs.19,18,741/-. On 24.9.87,the plaintiff wrote stating that the defendant had not made copies of bills for the expenses available to the plaintiff. It noted that supply of electricity had been cut off by the authorities. The defendant in the context adds that the defendant had paid further amount to get electricity restored on permanent basis. On 5.5.88 the plaintiff through its counsel demanded vouchers for providing amenities. On 26.5.88 the defendant through his counsel answered. On 29.9.88 the plaintiff stated that the claim of the defendant for expenses had not been admitted and that the plaintiff proposed to file a suit against the defendant. The plaintiff denied the liability to pay any expenses towards electricity or water charges. Finally on 1.2.89, the plaintiff was required to confirm their unwillingness to proceed. On 12.5.89, the defendant's counsel informed the plaintiff that the plaintiff committed breach. On 3.10.88, the defendant had informed the plaintiff about his obtaining certificate under Sec.230A of Income Tax Act and had requested the plaintiff to pay the balance and complete the sale. The letters from the plaintiff thereafter would show that the plaintiff went back on acceptance of the defendant's claim for providing amenities like, lifts, etc. The plaintiff has claimed that a sum of Rs.76,225/- has to be deducted from the sale price if the defendant failed to produce bills and vouchers. The figures agreed,therefore, was Rs.1,68,750/- though claimed by the defendant was Rs.2,22,916/-. The cost of the amenities should include the profit for the defendant. The defendant cannot block its own funds and labour for no profit. The plaintiff is not entitled for any reduction in the costs of amenities nor can the term of the contract be substituted. No such demand had ever been made earlier. The defendant stated that the defendant provided lifts, bore well, transformer, etc. only at the instance of the plaintiff and on agreement that the plaintiff would pay therefor. As the plaintiff was not paying the amounts, the defendant for some time made the payment. The flats were ready early in 1983. The plaintiff wanted additional facilities to be provided. On 1.4.85, even according to the plaintiff, water and electricity had been restored, of course at the cost of the defendant. The draft sale deed was returned with suggestions for alterations. The plaintiff accepted the suggestions. The plaintiff sent a fresh draft sale deed. The defendant applied for certificate under Sec.230A of Income Tax Act and there was a delay in the officials of that Department as was pointed out by the defendant's counsel letter dated 26.5.88. On 3.10.88 the defendant forwarded the certificate and wanted the plaintiff to complete the sale. The plaintiff wanted fresh inspection of the flat. The plaintiff suggested inspection of amenities by an independent valuer, which was not acceptable to the defendant. The plaintiff even at that stage would not say whether the plaintiff had obtained the approval of its CMD. The defendant states that even according to the plaintiff the value of the apparent consideration for the agreement between the parties exceeded Rs.10 lakhs is to be filed before the appropriate authority under that. The said provision came in to force in the city of Hyderabad effective from 8.5.89. On filing of the agreement the Union of India could exercise a preemptive right to purchase the property for the same consideration. Sec.269 U.L. Prohibits registration of instruments transferring immovable properties covered by such agreements without the appropriate authority issuing a certificate that it has no objection for the transfer. No such agreement was filed before the appropriate authority. By reason of the default in filing the agreement within the said period, the agreement has ceased to be valid and enforceable. The transfer of the property in violation of the Income Tax Act is also a punishable offence. For the reasons stated above, there is no enforceable agreement for the plaintiff to seek relief as asked for. Hence, the suit has got to be dismissed with costs.
4. On the above pleadings by the respective sides, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether there was a concluded contract between the parties? 2. Whether the defendants had failed to perform his part of the contract when the plaintiff was ready and willing to purchase the flats for the price agreed?
3. Whether the contract could not be completed because of the conduct of the plaintiff.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the contract? 5. Whether the contract has become impossible for performance in view of the provisions of Chapter XXC of Income Tax Act?
6. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?
5. ISSUES 1 TO 6: The plaintiff insurance company has filed this civil action seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of the schedule mentioned five flats in the building known as 'Venkatramana Apartments', situate at Khairatabad, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and to deliver vacant possession thereof along with a direction to the defendant to produce the bills/vouchers for provision of amenities such as lift, sump, electricity meters, motor casting drilling installations, pump meter and other accessories, or in the alternative in the absence of production of vouchers/bills, for reducing the balance consideration of Rs.76,225/- and fixing the sale price at Rs.18,42,516/-.
6. On the side of the plaintiff P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, and Exs.P1 to P37 were marked. On the side of the defendant D.W.1 was examined.
7. The admitted facts which are necessary to decide the issues can shortly be stated as follows:
The plaintiff United India Insurance Company has its head office in Madras and a regional office at Hyderabad. In its look out for purchase of residential apartments for its officers working in their offices in Hyderabad, the plaintiff came to know about the residential flats in the building known as 'Venkataramana Apartments' at Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, which was being under construction. The plaintiff, following a discussion which the plaintiff's Manager and the defendant had, sent Ex.P1 letter dated 17.5.1982 which resulted in defendant's promise under Ex.P2 dated 21.5.82 that the flats under construction would be ready for occupation in September 1982. In reply to Ex.P2, the plaintiff sent a letter under Ex.P3 dated 22.7.82 accepting the offer and communicating its approval for the rates at Rs.215/- per sq.ft. for the constructed area, Rs.100/- per sq.ft. for the open area and Rs.125/- per sq.ft. for the car parking area. A photostat copy of the sanctioned plan by the Hyderabad Municipal corporation was sent by the defendant to the plaintiff with Ex.P4 letter dated 24.7.1982. The plaintiff paid Rs.7,00,000/- as advance to the defendant by a cheque dated 21.8.1982 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Thousand Lights Branch, Madras. The defendant expressed his willingness to sell the whole building consisting of 12 flats, except one flat in the first floor, to the plaintiff company by a letter dated 28.11.1983 under Ex.P5. The plaintiff company had a meeting on 28.8.1984 in respect of the purchase of the said flats, and the minutes thereon is Ex.P6. The parties had agreed on the rates already fixed regarding the covered area, parking area and peripheral area surrounding the building and also agreed that the plaintiff should pay 5/12 of the costs of the amenities provided by the defendant such as lift, transformer, meters, borewells, pump and motor lift room and machine room. Under Ex.P7 letter, the plaintiff requested the defendant to furnish the details of the actual cost incurred by him for the amenities. Accordingly, the defendant sent a letter under Ex.P8 dated 5.9.84 giving the details. Regarding electricity supply, the plaintiff sent Ex.P9 letter to the defendant on 26.11.1984. Under Ex.P10 letter dated 3.12.84, the defendant informed the plaintiff about the installation of the transformer. In reply to Ex.P10, the plaintiff sent Ex.P11 letter dated 10.12.84, enclosing a copy of their letter dated 13.9.84. By a letter dated 1.4.85 under Ex.P12, the plaintiff called upon the defendant to meet them and to enable them to finalise the bill. Under Ex.P13 letter dated 18.5.85, the plaintiff had asked for the encumbrance certificate for 1982 to 15.5.1985. Subsequent to Ex.P13, the plaintiff wrote Ex.P14 letter dated 15.10.85 to the defendant enclosing a draft sale deed, and had asked for clearance under Section 213 of the Income Tax Act. Ex.P15 is a letter dated 11.8.86 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, requesting the defendant to arrange for registration. The defendant sent a reply under Ex.P16 dated 24.9.86. In reply to Ex.P16, the plaintiff issued Ex.P17 letter on 15.10.86. The plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice under Ex.P18 dated 2.12.86. In reply to Ex.P18 notice, the defendant sent a reply notice under Ex.P1 9 dated 18.12.86. The plaintiff sent Ex.P20 letter dated 11.8.87, furnishing one more copy of the sale deed. The plaintiff had asked for details of further development as found under Ex.P21 letter dated 24 .9.87. Asking for a certificate that the plaintiff had paid an advance of Rs.7.00 lakhs in 1982 for the proposed sale of five flats, the defendant sent Ex.P22 letter dated 2.12.87. Accordingly, the plaintiff sent the said certificate as found under Ex.P23 dated 3.12.87. Ex.P24 is the letter dated 10.12.87 asking for copies of the receipts of the expenses incurred by the defendant to provide the amenities. The plaintiff sent a letter under Ex.P25 dated 17.2.88 to the defendant. Ex.P26 is the further notice issued on 5.5.1988. The reply from the defendant's counsel is Ex.P27 dated 26.5.88. The plaintiff issued another notice under Ex.P28 dated 25.5.88. The defendant's counsel sent a letter under Ex.P29 dated 3.10.88 to the plaintiff's counsel. The reply to Ex.P29 is Ex.P30 dated 17.10.88. The plaintiff's counsel sent another notice under Ex.P31 dated 31.12.88. The reply sent by the defendant's counsel to the plaintiff's counsel is Ex.P32 dated 13.1.89. The defendant's counsel sent a letter under Ex.P33 dated 1 .12.89 to the plaintiff's counsel, and the enclosures thereunder are Exs.P33A and P33B. Ex.P34 is the lawyer's notice issued by the plaintiff, while Ex.P35 is the notice dated 12.5.89 from the defendant's counsel to the plaintiff's counsel. The defendant's counsel sent further notice under Ex.P36. The plaintiff's counsel sent another notice under Ex.P37 dated 9.6.89.
8. Arguing for the plaintiff Insurance company, the learned counsel would submit that the plaintiff company has its branch office at Hyderabad, and in order to accommodate their officers working there, it was in need of residential quarters; that on coming to know about the same, the defendant who was making his constructions of residential flats known as Venkatramana Apartments offered the same; that there was a discussion on 7.5.82 at the plaintiff's office, which was confirmed under Ex.P1 letter, which would evidence offer to purchase; that the defendant by a reply under Ex.P2 offered to sell his flats and also assured that the construction would be over in September 1982; that the defendant offered to construct and sell 5 flats out of 12 which was accepted by the plaintiff; that the defendant agreed to the rates quoted by the plaintiff and confirmed the same under Ex.P3 letter; that following the discussions in December 1982, parties undertook to complete the formalities by execution of a sale agreement; that the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as advance on 21.8.82 which the defendant is keeping with him even today; that the plaintiff was under the hope that the defendant would hand over possession of the building after completing the construction; that it would be evident from Ex.P6 wherein the defendant has signed that he undertook to furnish all the details about the cost of amenities such as transformer, meters, borewell, pump and motor lift room and machine room; that despite number of requisitions and communications, the defendant did not care to furnish the same; that it is true that there were some discussions as to the purchase of all the 12 flats, but it was made clear at one point of time that the plaintiff was interested in purchasing only 5 flats and completing the transaction in that respect and not interested in respect of the rest of the building; that even at the end of 1984, the defendant did not provide the transformer, electricity connection and water supply; that the same was brought to the notice of the defendant under Ex.P7; that the peripheral land according to the Architect who measured the property was 2835 sq.ft. and the plaintiff's share of 5/12 worked out to 1181 sq.ft.; that under Ex.P8 communication, the defendant stated that the total cost of the amenities was Rs.5,35,000/- and towards the plaintiff's 5/12 share the plaintiff should pay Rs.2,22,966/-; that it is pertinent to note that the electricity service connection and the water connection were subsequently disconnected; that it is true that the defendant installed the transformer, but no connection was given to the same; that the plaintiff under Ex.P12 requested the defendant to furnish the vouchers and supporting bills in connection with the amenities provided in the flats; that Exs.P7 would also indicate the same; that the plaintiff made further request to complete the transaction by complying with the formalities; that at that juncture, the defendant asked the plaintiff to send a draft sale deed; that along with Ex.P14 a draft sale deed was sent; that the defendant requested the plaintiff to send him the certificate for the payment of Rs.7.00 lakhs as advance in 1982 for the purpose of obtaining a certificate under S.230(a) of the Income Tax Act; that accordingly a certificate as found under Ex.P23 was sent; that it is not correct to state that the building was ready as early as 1983; that the water supply was cut of in the year 1994 not because of any of the acts of the plaintiff's side; that the defendant claimed an additional sum of Rs.15,000/- without any basis whatsoever, which was refused by the plaintiff; that it is not correct on the part of the defendant to say that two draft sale deeds were sent; that it is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has sent only one draft sale deed; that again under Exs.P21 and P24, the plaintiff had written to the defendant asking for the supporting bills and vouchers; that the plaintiff company was all along ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration and get the sale executed in their favour; that though the defendant claimed that the completion of the building was over and all the amenities were provided, the defendant was not at all ready and willing, but following delaying tactics and evasive process for the reasons best known to him, and under such circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a lawyer's notice which resulted in a reply; that after receipt of notices, the plaintiff had no option than to file the suit for specific performance; that a scrutiny of the documents would clearly reveal that the defendant who entered into an agreement of sale in the year 1982 and obtained Rs.7.00 lakhs from the plaintiff was never willing and ready to perform his part of the contract by delivering possession of the property and executing the sale deed; that it is pertinent to note that there was no fault on the part of the plaintiff at any point of time, and under such circumstances, the court has to exercise its discretion in favour of the plaintiff in granting the relief of specific performance. Added further, the learned counsel that if the court comes to the conclusion that it is not a fit case for granting specific performance, then the court has to grant the alternative relief of ref und of the advance of Rs.7.00 lakhs with subsequent interest at 18 per annum from the date of payment till realisation.
9. Countering to the above contentions of the plaintiff's side, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.Krishnamurthy would submit that the plaintiff who was never willing and ready to perform their part of the contract has come forward with a vexatious suit and has made an attempt to invoke the discretionary powers of the court to get a relief of specific performance; that the contract, exchange of notices and communications between the parties were admitted; that at every stage when the defendant required the plaintiff to complete the sale, on one excuse or other the plaintiff was putting off the same; that the sanctioned plan and the encumbrance certificate upto 27.6.80 were sent to the plaintiff; that the agreement spoke about the conveyance but not the payment; that the defendant informed the plaintiff by a letter dated 19.8.83 that the flats were completed in all respects and were ready for occupation; that the plaintiff had inspected the premises on 19 .8.83 and was satisfied about the completion of the construction; that the parties accepted the rates mentioned in Ex.P6; that it is pertinent to note that it was only in the meeting dated 28.8.84 the plaintiff communicated its acceptance for meeting 5/12 cost of such amenities provided by the defendant; that the defendant had incurred expenses for the lift, transformer, borewell etc., in anticipation of the plaintiff's approval; that on 5.9.84 the defendant wrote to the plaintiff giving break up of the cost incurred by the defendant; that the bills had already been shown to the plaintiff and their officer had accepted the same; that it is pertinent to note that the plaintiff accepted that the transformer had been installed; that in view of the plaintiff not occupying the building for the past 1 « years the defendant had to incur numerous losses; that the defendant called upon the plaintiff to complete the transaction; that on 24.9.86, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff regarding the delay caused by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff had chosen to blame the defendant; that the plaintiff had originally sent a draft sale deed, and subsequently it had sent another draft sale deed with varied terms; that the plaintiff is obliged to pay Rs.19,18,741/- plus Rs.1,30,950/- totalling Rs.20,49,691/-; that though the defendant expressed readiness to perform the contract, it was on the hope and trust the plaintiff would obtain the approval of CMD before the execution of the deed; that till date there is no approval communicated by the plaintiff, and thus there is no concluded contract between the parties; that the plaintiff is not entitled for any reduction in the cost of amenities nor can the term of the contract be substituted; that it is pertinent to note that in the letter sent by the plaintiff on 31.2.88, the amont shown as due was Rs.12,18,741/-; that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to purchase the flats; that the defendant who examined himself as DW1 has stated that he had completed the building by 1982 -83 itself, but completion certificate was not obtained from the Development Authorities; that when the building was completed, the amenities such as permanent electricity connection, water supply and sewerage and drainage facility and also other special amenities that were to be provided as agreed to under the agreement were available; that permanent electricity connection was obtained in 1982-83; that it is pertinent to note that since the building was not occupied, the defendant had to pay the minimum electricity charges; that since the plaintiff specifically wanted separate metre, the defendant installed a transformer, and deposit was also made in the name of the plaintiff; that the cost of the installation of the transformer was to be shared by the plaintiff and the defendant; that the share of the plaintiff was only 5/12th of the cost; that it is admitted by DW1 that he signed in Ex.P6; that it is pertinent to note that the approval endorsement was found in Ex.P6; that the plaintiff did not write for joint inspection of the building to find out whether all the amenities were available; that D.W.1 had given the bills and vouchers; that there is no letter to that effect; that it is stated by DW1 that there was no written agreement regarding the purchase of flats; that since the defendant was always willing and ready to perform his part of the contract, the plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance; that the defendant is not liable to pay Rs.7 lacs received a advance by him; that the evidence both oral and documentary adduced by the plaintiff's side do not support the case of the plaintiff, and hence, under the circumstances of the case, the suit has to be dismissed. In support his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in (2001) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 600.
10. As seen above, the plaintiff has come forward for specific performance of an agreement for sale in respect of 5 flats out of 12 in the building known as 'Venkatramana Apartments' described in the schedule to the plaint, and in the alternative, the refund of the advance sum of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest at 18 per annum from the date of the payment viz. 21.8.1982 till realisation. The defendant has contested the suit by stating that there was no concluded contract between the parties, in respect of which the plaintiff could seek enforcement; that the construction of the flats were completed in 1983 itself, and flats were ready for occupation; that the plaintiff though had inspection of the premises in August 1983 itself, did not come forward to perform its part by paying the balance of consideration; that at one state, the plaintiff was willing to purchase 11 flats instead of 5, and informed that the same was under the discussion with the higher authorities, and therefore, they did not insist on the completion of the sale of the five flats; that though the p laintiff agreed to pay 5 /12th share of the cost of the amenities, provided by the defendant, and despite the same was intimated and demanded, and though the plaintiff accepted the same, the plaintiff did not answer the same; and thus, by incurring expenses for the lift, transformer, bore well, etc., the defendant had spent lot money and had also incurred the cost in respect of the amenities; that the plaintiff sent to the defendant two different draft sale deeds stipulating varied terms and conditions; that the defendant thought not obliged, had spent for installation of the transformer, electricity service connection and water connection and the charges therefor till they were disconnected; that the defendant has furnished encumbrance certificate and income tax clearance certificate as required by the plaintiff; that all the communications between the parties would clearly reveal that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform its part of the consideration, but followed evasive and dilatory attitude, and since the plaintiff was never ready and willing to purchase the flats, they are not entitled for the relief, and apart from that, huge amounts were spent by the defendant towards amenities, installation of transformer, which the plaintiff is liable to pay to the defendant, and that apart, all the 12 flats have remained vacant from the time of completion of construction in 1983, and on that ground, the plaintiff is liable to pay damages, and thus, the plaintiff is not entitled for the refund of money also, and hence, the suit has to be dismissed. Pursuant to the discussions between the Plaintiff's Manager and the defendant, the plaintiff Insurance Company has issued Ex.P1 letter dated 17.5.1982 expressing their willingness to purchase the five flats and has requested the defendant to indicate other details. The defendant under Ex.P2 letter dated 21.5.1982 has replied that he was willing to sell at Rs.215/- per sq.ft. on the basis of the super plinth area i.e. outer column to outer column, and the flats would be ready for occupation by the end of September 1982 in all respects. Ex.P2 would also indicate that the other terms and conditions were to be discussed and finalised. The defendant has also sent Ex.P3 letter dated 22.7.82 giving further details and a copy of the sanctioned plan along with Ex.P4 letter dated 24 .7.782. It is quite evident from Ex.P6 minutes of the meeting dated 2 8.8.84 that there were discussions between the officials of the plaintiff's side and the defendant. It was decided and there was a finalization of the deal for purchase of five flats. Ex.P6 reads thus:
"It has been decided that we would finalise the deal for purchase of 5 flats at the agreed rates as under:
1. Rate of Rs.215/- per sq.ft. for covered area of flats and service area and balcony area.
2. Rate of Rs.125/- per sq.ft. for two covered parking areas in the basement.
3. Rate of Rs.100/- per sq.ft. for 5/12th of the pheripheral land surrounding the building.
4. The promoter was also informed that we are agreeable to pay 5/12 th of the cost of amenities provided by him such as lift, transformers and meters, borewell, pump and motor; lift room and machine room. A.....
D. We informed Sr. Rao that we would pay 5/12th of the cost of amenities provided by him and he was requested to let us know the total cost incurred towards expenses for these amenities to decide on the quantum to be paid. He agreed that he would submit the same with supporting bills and vouchers." It is pertinent to note that the defendant has also signed in the said document. Apart from that, the defendant has categorically admitted that all the terms and conditions regarding the sale of 5 flats were confirmed on 28.8.1984 under Ex.P6, and he signed in Ex.P6 also. The defendant has also further added that regarding the peripheral land, it was approved by the Chairman and Managing Director on 3.9.1984, and the approval endorsement was also found in Ex.P6. It remains to be stated that pursuant to the agreement between the parties, the defendant has received Rs.7.00 lacs towards advance on 21.8.1982. It is also admitted by the defendant that it represented the part of the consideration of the sale price. In view of all the above, the first contention of the defendant that there was no concluded contract has got to be negatived.
11. The specific case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff company was all along ready and willing to pay the balance of consideration, but the defendant was evading the same on one pretext or other. The prime contention of the defendant is that though the building was completed in the year 1983, and he was ready to execute a sale deed by receiving the balance of sale consideration and other charges spent by him, as agreed upon, the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Admittedly, the plaintiff agreed to purchase 5 flats at the rate of Rs.215/- per sq.ft. for covered area of flats, Rs.125/- per sq.ft. for parking area and Rs.100/- per sq.ft. for 5/12th peripheral land surrounding the building. The plaintiff has also agreed to pay 5/12th of the cost of amenities provided by the defendant such as lift, transformers, meters, borewell, pump, motor room, lift room, and machine room. According to the defendant, the building was completed in the year 1982-83, and when the building was completed, the amenities such as permanent electricity service connection, water supply, drainage and sewerage facilities and also other special facilities that were to be provided as agreed to under the agreement were available. The consideration of Rs.19,18,741/- was made up of the price for the covered area, car parking area, peripheral land surrounding the building, the other services area like core staircase room, lift machine room, steps to lift machine room, and Marble cladding and lift, transformer, meters, pump motor, borewell pipe casting drilling installation, etc. The break up figures in respect of the details of the cost of 5 flats totalling to Rs.19,18,741/- as found in para 30 of the written statement i s not disputed by the plaintiff. It is contended by the plaintiff's side that the supporting bills and vouchers in respect of these amenities, despite number of requests and reminders, were not at all furnished by the defendant. A reading of Ex.P7 letter sent by the plaintiff to the defendant dated 2.11.1984 would indicate that the plaintiff asked for the available bills pertaining to the amenities provided in the building. In the said communication, the plaintiff's earlier letter dated 13.9.84 was referred to. The defendant by his communication under Ex.P8 dated 5.9.1984 has informed the details of the cost of the lift including the marble cladding and also the cost of the lift machine room and the various accessories, and has also pointed out that the proportionate 5/1 2th share has come to Rs.2,22,916.66. By the said communication, he has informed that the transaction has got to be completed as early as 1983 January. The communication of the plaintiff dated 26.11.1984 under Ex.P9 would indicate that the transformer was installed at the said complex, and the plaintiff has made a request to the defendant to get early connection from the electricity department and has also noted that the water connection was necessary for the occupation of the building. On receipt of the said communication, the defendant had informed the plaintiff under Ex.P10 dated 3.12.84 that the building was completed two years ago, and only on the incision of the plaintiff to have independent meters for all the flats, the occupation was delayed, and the power was connected to the building some time in 1983, and one of the flats was also occupied in January 1983. The defendant has also pointed out that the Water Works Department has given the water connection, and he has made the deposit therefor, and he has made a request for the completion of the transaction. Again by a communication on 10.12.84 as found under Ex.P11, the plaintiff has confirmed the fact of the erection of a transformer, but stated that the connection was not given. The plaintiff has also complained of the disconnection of the water connection due to the non payment of water charges. At this juncture, it has to be pointed out that the water connection and electricity service connection were obtained, and the transformer was installed by the defendant by spending moneys out of his pocket. It is not disputed that one of those 12 flats was occupied by a tenant for some time, and the same would indicate that it was fit for occupation that time. Under Ex.P12, the plaintiff has stated that it had received information from the Regional Manager, Hyderabad that the transformer has been installed; that power connection has been given; and that the municipal water connection was also given, but the bills for the purchase of the lift, etc., were not made available to enable the plaintiff to take a decision. The above communication would clearly reveal that the officials of the plaintiff on inspection found that the amenities were available. Under the circumstances, the contention of the plaintiff that the flats were not ready and fit for occupation cannot be countenanced.
12. It is seen from Ex.P13 dated 18.5.85 that the plaintiff has sought for the encumbrance certificate from 1982 to 15.5.1985. Apart from sending a draft sale deed under Ex.P14 on 15.10.1985, the plaintiff had asked the defendant to make necessary arrangements to get the clearance under S.230 of the Income Tax Act. Significant it is to note that in the said communication, the plaintiff has categorically stated as follows: "The costs of the flats and all other common area, 5/12 of the peripheral land, lift and others have been valued as per rates accepted by you." A reading of Ex.P15 letter dated 11.8.1986 from the plaintiff to the defendant would reveal that the plaintiff has expressed its readiness to proceed with the registration of the sale deed and take possession of the five flats after making the payment of the balance amount due to the defendant and after adjusting the advance amount of Rs.7.00 lacs paid to him already. It remains to be stated that in Ex.P15 the plaintiff has nowhere pointed out any defect in the building or has asked for anything about the vouchers or the supporting bills, etc. The tenor of the document would to the effect that what was remaining to be done at that juncture, was the approval of the draft sale deed and nothing else. It is contended by the defendant's side that after sending the first draft sale deed for approval, and while the same was pending in the hands of the defendant, the plaintiff sent the second draft sale deed with varied terms, and hence, the sale transaction could not be proceeded with. It is specifically urged by the plaintiff's side that only one draft sale deed was sent and not two. Ex. P14 letter dated 15.10.85 refers to a draft sale deed sent along with that letter. On receipt of a communication of the plaintiff under Ex.P15 dated 11.8.1986, the defendant has issued a detailed reply on 24 .9.86 under Ex.P16, wherein he has stated thus: "And now you have sent me a draft sale deed again. This draft is not acceptable, as it varies from the earlier one sent and accepted." The plaintiff company in its reply to Ex.P16 letter has sent another communication on 25.10.1986, which reads as follows: "We are unable to understand as to why the draft sale deed is unacceptable. As a purchaser we are entitled to send the draft in the form in which we desire the sale deed to be executed and unless there is any valid objectionable clause it not open to you to refuse to sign the sale deed, in that form. As such we do not see any justification for your refusal to accept the draft sale deed."
This part of the communication would clearly indicate that the plaintiff has sent the second draft sale deed which was in variance to the terms and conditions as found in the first draft sale deed. Instead of explaining the reasons therefor, the plaintiff has stated that as a purchaser they were entitled to send th e draft in the form in which they desire the sale deed to be executed.
13. It is not disputed that on request of the plaintiff, the encumbrance certificates pertaining to the property and the income tax clearance certificate were also furnished. Not satisfied with the claim made by the plaintiff in respect of the amenities already provided by the defendant out of his moneys the plaintiff has also appointed an independent valuer and has also noted that the difference was not less than Rs.75,000/- and has pointed out the same under Ex.P34. At this juncture, it has to be pointed out that even under Ex.P14 dated 15.1 0.1985, the plaintiff has stated that the cost of the flats and all other common area, 5/12 of the peripheral land, lift and others have been valued as per the rates accepted by the defendant, and on receipt of the defendant approving the draft, the plaintiff was prepared to proceed with the preparation of the sale deed and execution and registration of the same. If really the plaintiff was satisfied with the rates and the value put forth by the defendant and was prepared to proceed with the preparation of the sale deed on approval of the draft and execution and registration of the same, there was no necessity for the plaintiff to appoint an independent valuer to value the amenities and would further tell that there was difference of Rs.75,000/-. Even after the receipt of the approved plan in respect of the construction in question and after the inspection of the same by its officials in the Regional Office at Hyderabad, it is stated under Ex.P17 letter dated 15.10.86 sent by PW2 that even the area to be sold was in dispute, and it had to be reconciled. Through a notice by their counsel under Ex.P18 dated 2.12.86, the plaintiff has informed that they have always been and still was ready and willing to perform their part of the obligation and pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs.12 ,18,741/- at any time. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has not stipulated any condition for the payment of the said balance of consideration. Contrary to the same, the plaintiff company in the relief clause has sought for a direction to the defendant for production of bills/vouchers for provision of amenities such as lift, sump, electricity meters, motor casting drilling installations, pump meter and other accessories or alternatively in the absence of production of the vouchers/bills for reducing the balance sale consideration of Rs.76,225/- and fixing the sale price at Rs.18,42,516/-. Thus, what is found in the above clause in the plaint stands contra to the contract entered into between the parties and the notice issued by the plaintiff under Ex.P18 stated supra. All the above would be clearly indicative of the fact that the plaintiff has not evinced in the actual completion of the transaction by paying the balance of consideration, despite the completion of the construction of the flats even in 1983 and the provision of all the required amenities. At this juncture, the court may hasten to say that the plaintiff except the initial payment of Rs.7.00 lakhs, has not parted with any money thereafter. The defendant has spent his moneys for the installation of transformer, electricity service connection, water connection and for the minimum payments for some time till they are disconnected. Having failed in completing the transaction by paying the balance of consideration, the plaintiff cannot be permitted either to complain about the disconnection of the electricity and water connections or to say that the defendant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
14. Concededly the contract for purchase of five flats was finalised between the parties under Ex.P6 on 28.8.1984. From the available evidence it would be clear that the construction was completed in the year 1983. The defendant's building which consists of 12 flats remains vacant from the time of completion of the construction till date. Though originally electricity service connection and water connection were obtained, both were disconnected subsequently. At present, there are no amenities such as permanent electricity connection, water supply, sewerage and drainage connection. Taking into consideration the age of the construction, the present condition of the building is also a relevant factor. No material is available to indicate the present condition of the building. In one of the notices, the plaintiff has pointed out that the defendant is responsible for effecting repairs in the building. In view of all the above, it is highly doubtful whether the defendant could be directed to perform his part of the contract by executing a sale deed in respect of the five flats as originally agreed upon between the parties under Ex.P6 and that too not fit for occupation at present by the officials of the plaintiff company. From the very beginning, the plaintiff through its notices and in the pleading also has complained that the defendant has not furnished the vouchers and supporting bills for its claim towards the amenities. On the contrary, it is contended by the defendant's side that the defendant had spent Rs.80,000/- for the installation of electricity on account of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, an independent valuer was appointed, who on inspection has given a report about the various amenities, and they are available, and as per the said valuation, there is a difference of not less than Rs.75,000/-, and to that extent, the sale consideration has got to be reduced. Thus, it would be clear that one has got the claim against the other. It is an admitted position that at no point of time, there was joint inspection of the property. In the absence of those claims being settled, the relief of specific performance cannot be granted.
15. The circumstances specified under S.20 of the Specific Relief Act speaking of the discretion of the court to grant specific performance are illustrative and not exhaustive. The court has to take into consideration the circumstances of each case before exercising its discretion. Under the stated circumstances, the relief of specific performance as required by the plaintiff, if granted, would, no doubt, give rise to causes of action for both sides to initiate unnecessary litigation and would certainly cause multiplicity of proceedings. In order to avoid the avoidable litigation, the court is of the view that the discretionary relief of specific relief under the given circumstances, should not be granted.
16. Needless to say that the relief of specific performance is discretionary and need not be given merely because it is lawful to do so. The said discretion has to be exercised by the court judiciously and after being satisfied that the circumstances do exist that it is equitable to grant such a relief. In exercising the discretion, no doubt, the court has to take into account the circumstances of the case, the conduct of the parties and the respective interest of the parties under the agreement. The grant of the relief, if would cause unnecessary hardship and injury to the defendant than conferring a benefit on the plaintiff and it would be inequitable to do so, under the stated circumstances, the court has to necessarily refuse the same. Quite evident it is from the available materials that the conduct of the plaintiff company did not show that it was ready and willing to perform its part of the contract. The officials of the plaintiff company were in fatigue in issuing notices direct and through counsels also, but they have not evinced any interest in performing their part of the contract by making payment of balance of consideration. During the pendency of the agreement for sale in question, the plaintiff has desired to purchase all the 12 flats inclusive of those 5 flats under the agreement, and in view of the same also, there were discussions, and the matter has been delayed. The court is of the considered view that the conduct of the plaintiff as evidenced by the available materials would indicate that the plaintiff has not sincerely attempted to complete the transaction, and that the same would be sufficient to disentitle the plaintiff for the relief of specific performance. Therefore, it has to be found that there was a concluded contract between the parties; that the plaintiff had failed to perform its part of the contract, when the defendant was ready and willing to do his part; and that the contract could not be completed because of the conduct of the plaintiff. It has to be necessarily held that it is not a fit case where the court can exercise its discretion to grant the relief of specific performance, when the plaintiff company itself has failed to perform its part of the contract. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance of the contract.
17. The plaintiff as an alternative relief has asked for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs paid to the defendant. It is an admitted position that pursuant to the discussions, the defendant has received Rs.7.00 lakhs as advance in re t of the sale of five flats and has been keeping the same all along. The defendant has neither cancelled the agreement nor made any attempt to refund the said advance amount. Under such circumstances and in view of the refusal of the relief of specific performance, it would be equitable to direct the defendant to refund the said Rs.7.00 lakhs with subsequent interest at 12 per annum from 21.8.1982 till realisation, and the interest of justice would also require so. The court is of the view that a charge should be created over the suit property for the decree amount. All the above issues are answered accordingly.
18. In the result, the plaintiff is given a decree for a sum of Rs.7 ,00,000/- with subsequent interest at 12 per annum from 21.8.1982 till the date of realisation. Time for payment is three months. A charge is also created over the suit property for the decree amount till the decree granted supra, is fully satisfied. In all other respects, the suit is dismissed. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to the costs.
List of Witnesses:
1. P.W.1 - T. Srinivasaraghavan
2. P.W.2 - K.T. Ramasamy
3. D.W.1 - E. Ahobala Rao
List of Exhibits :
1. Ex.P.1 - Letter from the plaintiff to the defendant dt.17.5.82 (copy)
2. Ex.P.2 - Letter from the defendant to the plaintiff dt.21.5.82
3. Ex.P.3 - Letter from the defendant to the plaintiff dt.22.7.82
4. Ex.P.4 - Letter from the defendant to the plaintiff dt.24.7.82
5. Ex.P.5 - Letter from the defendant to the plaintiff dt. 28.11.83
6. Ex.P.6 - Minutes of the meeting between the plaintiff and the defendant
7. Ex.P.7 - Letter from the plaintiff to the defendant(copy) 8. Ex.P.8 - Letter from the defendant to the plaintiff 9. Ex.P.9 - Letter from the plaintiff to the defendant(copy) 10.Ex.P.10- Letter from the defendant to the plaintiff 11.Ex.P.11- Letter from the plaintiff to the defendant 12.Ex.P.12- Letter from the plaintiff to the defendant 13.Ex.P.13- Letter from the plaintiff to the defendant 14.Ex.P.14- Letter from the plaintiff to the defendant 15.Ex.P.15- Letter from the plaintiff to the defendant 16.Ex.P.16- Letter from the defendant to the plaintiff 17.Ex.P.17- Letter from the plaintiff to the defendant 18.Ex.P.18- Lawyers notice from the plaintiff's counsel to the defendant
19.Ex.P.19- Reply notice from the defendant's counsel to the plaintiff's counsel
20.Ex.P.20- Letter from the plaintiff to the defendant 21.Ex.P.21- Letter from the plaintiff to the defendant 22.Ex.P.22- Letter from the defendant to the plaintiff 23.Ex.P.23- Letter from the plaintiff to the defendant 24.Ex.P.24- Letter from the plaintiff to the defendant 25.Ex.P.25- Letter from the plaintiff to the defendant 26.Ex.P.26- Lawyers notice from the plaintiff's counsel to the defendant
27.Ex.P.27- Reply notice from the defendant's counsel to the plaintiff's counsel
28.Ex.P.28- Lawyer's notice from the plaintiff's counsel to the defendant's counsel
&Ex.P.29(a) -Letter from the defendant's counsel to the plaintiff's counsel with enclosures 30.Ex.P.30 - Plaintiff's counsel to the defendant's counsel lawyer's notice
31. Ex.P.31 - Plaintiff's Lawyer to the defendant (notice) 32. Ex.P.32 - Defendant's counsel to the plaintiff's counsel (notice)
33. Ex.P.33 - Defendant's counsel to the plaintiff's counsel Ex.P.33(a) - Letter from the A.P.Electricity Board to the plaintiffs (xerox) Ex.P.33(b) - Receipts issued by the A.P. State
Electricity Board (xerox) 34. Ex.P.34 - Plaintiff's counsel to the defendant's counsel (notice)
35. Ex.P.35 - Defendant's counsel to the plaintiff's counsel (notice)
36. Ex.P.36 - Defendant's counsel to the plaintiff's counsel (letter)
37. Ex.P.37 - Plaintiff's counsel to the defendant's counsel (notice copy)
C.S.714 of 1989
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.