Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 367 (TS)

B. Shailaja v. Usha Reddy

2022-06-08

P.SREE SUDHA

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2001 passed in O.S.No.331 of 1995 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. 2. O.S.No.331 of 1995 was filed by the plaintiff seeking for recovery of money for an amount of Rs.4,99,725/- from the defendants with future interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit. The plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. The fourth defendant-daughter of the fifth defendant was examined as D.W.1 and the fifth defendant was examined himself as D.W.2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B4 General Power of Attorneys executed by Defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of their father-fifth defendant. The trial Court, after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and the case law cited by both the parties, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed this appeal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record properly and it ought to have seen that Ex.A1 is only a lease agreement and it does not take into its fold to be that of a lease deed as it was clearly mentioned in it that subsequent document was to be executed by the parties. He would further contend that the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards advance and also a sum of Rs.1,99,500/- towards advance rent, but the trial Court instead of decreeing the suit and directing refund of the advance as well as the balance rent dismissed the suit. He would also assert that the fifth defendant is no other than the father of defendant Nos.1 to 4 and as a General Power of Attorney Holder he accepted the lease agreement and received the money and as such he is bound to refund the same. He would also assert that the fifth defendant is no other than the father of defendant Nos.1 to 4 and as a General Power of Attorney Holder he accepted the lease agreement and received the money and as such he is bound to refund the same. He would also assert that Ex.A1 agreement was executed for a period of ten years and proper stamp duty is required to be paid and it is compulsorily registerable and as such it cannot be looked into by the trial Court. The provisions of the Stamp Act, Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act were not appreciated properly. He would also assert that Ex.A1 is an out and out lease deed and the terms of it were settled is not at all correct and hence the finding of the trial Court in eschewing Ex.A1 is not proper. He would also assert that the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 is substantive evidence and that the possession of the property was also handed over back on 14.10.1994 as per Ex.A2. He would finally argued that D.Ws.1 and 2 in order to avoid payment, denied the same, and therefore, requested this Court to set aside the judgment. 6. Smt.B.Shailaja is the plaintiff. She filed suit against Defendant Nos.1 to 5. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the daughters of the fifth defendant. She would assert in the plaint that she entered into an agreement of lease dated 14.10.1994 with the fifth defendant for lease of Ac.50.00 gts., of land situated in Sy.Nos.210, 211, 215 to 221 of Sircilmakhta, Narkhoda Village, Shamshabad Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The fifth defendant agreed for the lease of said land for the purpose of agriculture and also for breading of goats and sheeps or any other activities. Accordingly, she was put in possession of the property from 14.10.1994 onwards. Initially the lease was for period of 10 years which was extendable by mutual consent. The lease was granted on an yearly basis with effect from 14th October according to English Calendar and 13th October of next year. It was agreed that the plaintiff has to pay an amount of Rs.3,995/- per acre per annum towards the rent, exclusive of other charges. The lease was granted on an yearly basis with effect from 14th October according to English Calendar and 13th October of next year. It was agreed that the plaintiff has to pay an amount of Rs.3,995/- per acre per annum towards the rent, exclusive of other charges. On the date of execution of the agreement of lease, the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards advance as per Clause-3 of the agreement and also paid advance rent of Rs.1,99,750/- for one year and it was acknowledged by the fifth defendant. The agreement should be executed and registered in due course of time. However, due to highhandedness of the fifth defendant, the plaintiff’s operations were made impossible as he was interfering with the activity with an intention to cause loss and harassment as she being the lady and she has no other alternative but to surrender the property. After several requests plaintiff was permitted to leave the property but the fifth defendant has not paid the deposit amount nor the advance rent paid by her, and therefore, she was constrained to leave the property on 18.04.1995 putting back the defendants into possession. The rents already paid shall be adjusted towards the date of vacating the property. In fact, the plaintiff occupied the property for a period of six months from 14.10.1994 to 18.04.1995 and she is entitled for recovery of six months advance rent paid at the time of occupation of the property i.e., an amount of Rs.99,725/- along with advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- already deposited by her. 7. Written statement was filed by defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4, which was adopted by the second defendant. Admittedly, Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are daughters of the fifth defendant. He purchased the properties in the name of their daughters and they are the absolute owners of the property. They executed general power of attorney in his favour for sale of the property but not for lease. They never received Rs.4,00,000/- or Rs.1,99,750/-. The plaintiff has no source of income to pay the said amounts. As the lease agreement is for a period of ten years, it should be registered otherwise it is not valid. In the said agreement it was mentioned that a regular lease agreement would be executed in the course of time, and thus, it is not a concluded agreement and it was got up for wrongful gain. As the lease agreement is for a period of ten years, it should be registered otherwise it is not valid. In the said agreement it was mentioned that a regular lease agreement would be executed in the course of time, and thus, it is not a concluded agreement and it was got up for wrongful gain. The fifth defendant being the father of defendants 1 to 4, permitted to look after the lands on their behalf and he is an aged about 75 years and is a retired government employee and as such he never acted in a highhanded manner and he did not interfere with the affairs of the others. They would further assert that what is transpired between the plaintiff and the fifth defendant is not binding on them as they never authorised him to lease out the land on their behalf. They would further plead that this Court has no jurisdiction as the agreement was not entered with the defendants in Silcil Makhta, Shamshabad Revenue Mandal, and thus requested the Court to dismiss the suit. 8. A separate written statement was filed by the fifth defendant stating that there was no agreement of lease between the plaintiff and all the defendants. He would also state that initially lease is for a Ac.50.00 guntas of land but subsequently one Mr.B.Shiva Shankar who introduced himself as the husband of the plaintiff made it for Ac.40.00 guntas of land but the land does not belong to this defendant and he is not entitled to lease out the same but signed the lease deed on the persuasion of B.Shiva Shankar to accommodate him to raise loans from the financial institutions. The said land belongs to defendants 1 to 4 and they never authorised or empowered him to lease out the land or to obtain lease amount or lease advance. In fact, the owners of the land are interested only to sell away the land for valid consideration. Defendants 1 to 4 were not aware of the agreement of lease till the filing of the suit by the plaintiff. The plaintiff never approached all the defendants and he is not representing the defendants as GPA holders. He further stated that plaintiff has not paid Rs.4,00,000/- as advance on the date of agreement and that she has no capacity to pay or raise the said amount. The plaintiff never approached all the defendants and he is not representing the defendants as GPA holders. He further stated that plaintiff has not paid Rs.4,00,000/- as advance on the date of agreement and that she has no capacity to pay or raise the said amount. In fact, he never had any dealing with the plaintiff personally, but one B.Shiva Shankar asked him to execute the lease deed. He further asserted that if at all it is a lease for a period of 10 years, it should have been on proper stamps and registered. He also state that B.Shiva Shankar played fraud upon him in collusion with the plaintiff and now with a mala fide intention and an oblique motive taking advantage of the same trying to cause wrongful loss to the defendants. He further asserted that he is regularly maintaining the accounts of the income and expenditure. He has not disclosed the payment of advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff, except the payment of Rs.1,60,000/- in the manner in which it was paid, and thus requested to dismiss the suit. 9. The plaintiff-B.Shailaja was examined as P.W.1. In which she deposed that her father’s name is Babaiah and her husband’s name is Dwaraknath. She reiterated the contents of the plaint in her evidence. She deposed that she made deposits of Rs.4,00,000/- with the fifth defendant as advance and it is an interest free deposit and is to be refundable either on completion of lease or on termination of lease. The receipt of the amount was mentioned in the lease agreement. Defendants delivered possession to her and she started agricultural operations but the fifth defendant did not allowed her to take water and he was interfering with the way of cultivation undertaken by her and also obstructing her from doing any work. She further deposed that the fifth defendant was assaulting the labourers and as such she could not cultivate the land and after six months she surrendered possession of the land to the fifth defendant on 18.04.1995, but the fifth defendant did not refund her advance, and that she also paid rent for 12 months and it was not returned. Though she demanded the fifth defendant several times, he did not refund the same and as such she filed the present suit claiming interest @ 12% per annum. Though she demanded the fifth defendant several times, he did not refund the same and as such she filed the present suit claiming interest @ 12% per annum. She further deposed that the fifth defendant issued paper advertisement inviting lessee in August, 1994 and accordingly, she approached the fifth defendant for taking the land on lease. She along with her son and one B.Shiva Shankar who attested the document were present at the time of execution of agreement of lease-Ex.A1 on 14.10.1994. The fifth defendant showed the copy of General Power of Attorney executed in his favour by defendants 1 to 4. Her son and B.Shiva Shankar had gone through the contents of the said GPA. The entire land is an extent of Ac.103.00 guntas out of which she took Ac.50.00 gunts on lease. Defendant No.5 was raising grape garden and maintaining poultry in the remaining Ac.53.00 gunts of land and he was also having dairy and vegetable garden. There were four bore wells and one tank of the capacity of five lakh litres in the land leased to her. Defendant No.5 was taking water at night time without any notice to her. When it was informed to her by her labourer, she questioned the fifth defendant for which the fifth defendant beat the labourers. As fifth defendant was taking water she was not getting water by which she could not perform the agricultural operations. She also deposed that defendants 1 to 5 are pattadars. She saw one of the daughters of the fifth defendant, but do not know her name. She further deposed that one of the daughters of the fifth defendant is living in Delhi and another is living in Banglore and two daughters are living in Himayathnagar at Hyderabad. She admitted that it is mentioned in Ex.A1 that a further document was to be executed on stamp paper. She also deposed that she was not having anything in writing to show that she delivered possession of the suit land to defendants 1 to 4. She further deposed that she took the land on lease for raising commercial crops and grazing purpose. She also deposed that she is having a house bearing No.10-2-279 in Bazarghat. She also deposed that she was not having anything in writing to show that she delivered possession of the suit land to defendants 1 to 4. She further deposed that she took the land on lease for raising commercial crops and grazing purpose. She also deposed that she is having a house bearing No.10-2-279 in Bazarghat. It was given to her by her father in the year 1986 and she sold the same in the year 1994 for Rs.4,50,000/- and executed registered sale deed in the name of a Muslim, but she could not remember his name and she has not mentioned the said fact in the plaint. Except Ex.A1 she is not having any other proof to show that she paid Rs.4,00,000/- to the fifth defendant. It was suggested to her that she paid only a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- in four instalments i.e., Rs.10,000/- on 03.09.1994, Rs.50,000/- on 21.09.1994, Rs.50,000/- on 16.10.1994 and Rs.50,000/- on 05.11.1994. She further deposed that she obtained possession of the land on 14.10.1994 from the fifth defendant. It was suggested to her that she did not re-deliver possession to the fifth defendant and she denied the same. She also admitted that she did not give any notice to the fifth defendant for terminating the lease. 10. D.W.1-fourth defendant is one of the daughters of the fifth defendant. She deposed that defendant Nos.1 to 3 are her sisters and the first and second sisters are residing in USA and the third defendant lives in Delhi. She along with defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the owners of the suit land. They wanted to sell the suit land and gave General Power of Attorney to their father-fifth defendant, but they never intended to lease out the said land. She has no acquaintance with the plaintiff and no knowledge about the dealings between the plaintiff and the fifth defendant in respect of the property. She further deposed that only after filing suit, she came to know about the transaction. She never saw Ex.A1 and never gave any possession of the land to the plaintiff. Exs.B1 to B4 are marked through her. She admitted that Ex.A1 bears the signature of her father-fifth defendant. She also stated that she has no knowledge whether the fifth defendant leased the property in favour of the plaintiff and received Rs.4,00,000/- as an advance and a sum of Rs.1,99,000/- as lease amount. 11. Exs.B1 to B4 are marked through her. She admitted that Ex.A1 bears the signature of her father-fifth defendant. She also stated that she has no knowledge whether the fifth defendant leased the property in favour of the plaintiff and received Rs.4,00,000/- as an advance and a sum of Rs.1,99,000/- as lease amount. 11. The fifth defendant is examined as D.W.2. He deposed that defendant Nos.1 to 4 are his daughters. He purchased the land in the names of defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the year 1967 under registered document and they were recorded as owners in the revenue records. As a father and GPA holder of defendants 1 to 4 he was managing the lands. Under Exs.B1 to B4 his daughters authorised him to dispose off the property but not to lease out the same. The plaintiff did not approach him directly but approached through one B.Shiva Shankar. They agreed rent of Rs.3,995/- per year per acre. B.Shiva Shankar agreed to pay Rs.4,00,000/-towards advance and he wanted that the lease should be executed in the name of the plaintiff since he was Government servant and still possession is with the plaintiff and B.Shiva Shankar. Neither the plaintiff nor B.Shiva Shankar surrendered the possession to him or to defendant 1 to 4. As B.Shiva Shankar got prepared the draft Ex.A1 as the lease for 10 years, he requested B.Shiva Shankar to register the same but he stated that Ex.A1 is only a draft and unless he obtained loan from the bank he cannot pay the amount and for that purpose he obtained the signature on the draft agreement, and thus, signed on Ex.A1. Neither the plaintiff nor B.Shiva Shankar paid Rs.4,00,000/- or Rs.1,99,750/- to him or to Defendants 1 to 4. They informed him that they have no money and the document was executed only to obtain loan from the bank. He further deposed that they paid Rs.1,60,000/- to him. He never interfered or obstructed the cultivation or enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land. He has no enmity with the plaintiff or B.Shiva Shankar. The plaintiff has not issued any notice before filing of the suit. He also stated that he is a retired Deputy Chief Engineer, Railways. He signed Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is in his handwriting and it is a xerox copy. He has no enmity with the plaintiff or B.Shiva Shankar. The plaintiff has not issued any notice before filing of the suit. He also stated that he is a retired Deputy Chief Engineer, Railways. He signed Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is in his handwriting and it is a xerox copy. Ex.A1 bears his signature and Ex.A2 does not bear the signature of plaintiff, but her name was written therein. B.Shiva Shankar works in Oriental Insurance Company. Defendants 1 to 4 are recorded as possessors in phanies even today. He also deposed that he supplied copies of Exs.A1 to A4 to the plaintiff before execution of Ex.A1. His daughters-D.1 to D.4 requested him to sell the lands and as the lands were not immediately getting good price and the prices are likely to boost up on account of contemplated air port, he took a decision not to sell the properties but to lease it out. As he did not inform the same his daughters, only after receiving the summons in the suit they came to know about this transaction. He further deposed that an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- received by him was spent for farm management. He further deposed that Ex.A2 is a draft and it was not acted upon and he has not received possession of the land as mentioned in Ex.A2 on 14.10.1994. He further admitted that he gave paper publication for leasing out the suit property. Ex.A.3 is xerox copy of the paper publication in Deccan Chronicle dated 27.08.1994. 12. The admitted facts before the Court are that Defendants 1 to 4 are the daughters of the fifth defendant and they authorised him to sell the suit properties under Exs.B.1 to B.4 General Power of Attorneys issued by them. D.W.2 in his cross examination clearly deposed that though he was authorised only to sell the lands, as he was getting proper price, he intended them to lease it out and as such issued paper publication under Ex.A3 and B.Shiva Shankar approached him and entered into lease agreement under Ex.A1 and also signed on it. He also admitted that he handed over possession of the land in pursuance of Ex.A1 to the plaintiff and B.Shiva Shankar. 13. The plaintiff herein contended that B.Shiva Shankar is a witness. He also admitted that he handed over possession of the land in pursuance of Ex.A1 to the plaintiff and B.Shiva Shankar. 13. The plaintiff herein contended that B.Shiva Shankar is a witness. She along with her son and B.Shiva Shankar approached the fifth defendant for lease of Ac.50.00 gunts of land after seeing the paper publication and they entered into Ex.A1. Accordingly she paid Rs.4,00,000/- as an advance and also Rs.1,99,750/- towards advance rent for one year. Though the lease agreement was executed for period of 10 years, due to interference of the fifth defendant she could not continue the cultivation and surrendered the same after six months. As such she filed the suit for refund of Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.99,725/- towards rent of six months. 14. Learned counsel for the defendants would contend that the lease agreement is executed for a period of 10 years but it is not properly stamped and not registered and as such it is not valid and binding on the defendants. The trial Court observed that the document was marked in spite of objection and the learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that it can be looked into for a collateral purpose and it is a suit for recovery of the amount. But, in Ex.A2 the plaintiff clearly stated that she has not paid Rs.4,00,000/- as she intended to pay the same at the time of registration of the lease deed and she also specifically stated that she has no claim against the lessees and as such she is not entitled for the relief and dismissed the same. 15. Perusal of the lease agreement dated 14.10.1994 clearly shows that it was drafted on Rs.100/- stamp paper in detail. The said lease agreement was executed by defendants 1 to 4 in favour of the B.Shailaja (Plaintiff). It was initially executed for a period of 10 years commencing from 14.10.1994 which can be extended with the mutual consent. The year of tenancy for all purposes will be from 14th October to 13th October of next year. The lessee agreed to pay Rs.3,995/- per acre per annum excluding electricity consumption charges to the lessors or to their father and the GPA holder C.N.Reddy regularly in advance either in cash or by pay order on or before 14th October of every English Calendar Year and obtain receipt for the same. The lessee agreed to pay Rs.3,995/- per acre per annum excluding electricity consumption charges to the lessors or to their father and the GPA holder C.N.Reddy regularly in advance either in cash or by pay order on or before 14th October of every English Calendar Year and obtain receipt for the same. The contention about payment of rent is not supported by any rent receipt will not be valid and tenable. Clauses 3 and 4 of the agreement are relevant which reads as follows: 3. The Lessee paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four laksh only) as deposit. Lessee has also paid Rs.1,99,750/- (rupees one lakh ninety nine thousand seven hundred andfifty only) as cash towards advance rent for one year, the Lessor hereby acknowledges the receipt of the above payment. 4. Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs only) will be the advance rent of one year and Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs only) will be the deposit as security. This amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs only) will not carry any interest and the same has to be refunded before handing over vacant possession. 16. In Clause 15 it was clearly stated that C.N.Reddy, father of lessors, will be treated and accepted as an authorised agent of the lessors for the purpose of the lease. In Clause 19 it was mentioned that lessors and lessee hereby agree that a regular lease deed will be executed in due course and the same will be got registered. 17. The fifth defendant entered into an agreement of lease after due paper publication but simply stated that it was executed at the instance of B.Shiva Shankar for rising the loan and the said fact was not mentioned in the agreement. He also stated that B.Shiva Shankar is the husband of the plaintiff but as per the deposition of one Dwaraknath is husband of P.W.1, she stated that B.Shiva Shankar was a witness to Ex.A1. Though the fifth defendant was having knowledge that he was authorised only to sell the properties, he himself took a decision to lease out the same for which he issued a paper publication and accordingly the plaintiff approached him and executed Ex.A1 in his favour. In Clause-2 of the agreement it was specifically mentioned that payment of Rs.3,995/- per acre per year as rents. In Clause-2 of the agreement it was specifically mentioned that payment of Rs.3,995/- per acre per year as rents. In Clause-3 the fifth defendant himself acknowledged the receipt of Rs.4,00,000/- as deposit and Rs.1,99,750/- towards rent per one year. In Clause-4 it was mentioned that Rs.4,00,000/- will not carry any interest and it shall be refunded before handing over vacant possession. When the fifth defendant clearly knows that he is not authorised to lease out the properties, why he executed a lease agreement for a period of 10 years, which is extendable ever afterwards with mutual consent is not explained by him anywhere. Perusal of the lease agreement shows that he permitted the plaintiff to raise constructions in the suit property and several other Clauses including Clause No.17, which reads as follows: 17. In case of default or non-compliance of the above referred terms and conditions and act against concerned law and regulations in force, the lessee shall be liable for eviction and she has to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the said land to the lessor notwithstanding that agreed period of lease has expired or not. 18. In Clause-18 it was specifically stated that if at all he intended to sell the property he should give an option to the plaintiff first and if she is not in a position to buy the same he can sell the same to third parties subject to the lease agreement. But, taking advantage of Clause-19, the fifth defendant filed Ex.A2 a Xerox copy of the letter which is not signed by the plaintiff in which it was stated that the lease was to be registered and an advance of Rs.4,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of the registration of the lease deed and relying upon the said exhibit he stated that Rs.4,00,000/- was never paid and in fact, she has no capacity to pay the said amount and he is not liable to refund the same. The trial Court observed that when plaintiff filed Ex.A2, she has to rely upon the entire terms of Ex.A2 and she cannot adopt a part of it and ignore the other part. In fact, in the cross-examination of D.W.2 he admitted that Ex.A2 was drafted with his own handwriting but does not bear the signature of the plaintiff and it was only a draft prepared by him. In fact, in the cross-examination of D.W.2 he admitted that Ex.A2 was drafted with his own handwriting but does not bear the signature of the plaintiff and it was only a draft prepared by him. The fifth defendant disputed Ex.A1 on the ground that it was not properly stamped and registered but intended to rely upon a xerox copy which is not signed by the plaintiff to evade the payment. Even as per the admission of the plaintiff, she returned back possession of the land to the fifth defendant on 18.04.1995. In Ex.A2 the plaintiff stated that she paid rent amount of one year in advance. Perusal of the documents and the evidence on record shows that plaintiff entered into agreement of lease with the fifth defendant on 14.10.1994 and she was put in possession of the land and she also paid Rs.4,00,000/- as deposit and Rs.1,99,750/- towards advance rent for one year and it was acknowledged by the fifth defendant and that the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- will not carry any interest as it was deposited as security and the same shall be refunded before handing over the vacant possession and later as she could not cultivate the land due to the interference of the fifth defendant, she requested him for several times and he agreed and permitted her to surrender the land and accordingly Ex.A2 was drafted by the fifth defendant by himself with his own handwriting and she handed over possession of the land which was given to her on 14.10.1994. As the plaintiff handed over possession within six months after entering into an agreement, taking advantage of her helplessness the fifth defendant drafted Ex.A2 according to his convenience and included the sentences that Rs.4,00,000/- will be paid at the time of registration and there is no claim against the lessors only to suit his convince. Ex.A2 was only a draft and it was not properly executed by the plaintiff with her signature in favour of the fifth defendant. Taking advantage of the same, the fifth defendant along with his daughters colluded and raised an objection regarding the authenticity of Ex.A1 itself relying upon Exs.B1 to B4. The fifth defendant went to an extent of stating that plaintiff is still in possession of the land and she has to pay the rental amount to him and that he received only Rs.1,60,000/- but not Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.1,99,750/-. The fifth defendant went to an extent of stating that plaintiff is still in possession of the land and she has to pay the rental amount to him and that he received only Rs.1,60,000/- but not Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.1,99,750/-. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 stated that the plaintiff has no capacity to pay Rs.4,00,000/-, for which the plaintiff would submit that she sold her house in the year 1994 for Rs.4,50,000/- but she has not filed copy of the sale deed and she has not mentioned the same in the plaint also. She only relied upon Ex.A1 for claiming Rs.4,00,000/-. Ex.A1 was not even sent for impounding when it was specifically raised that it is insufficiently stamped. Though it was executed for 10 years, it was not registered and even in the agreement it was mentioned that both parties agreed for execution of regular lease deed in due course of time and the same will get registered. As the plaintiff was in possession of the land only for six months and she intended to surrender the same, the question of executing regular sale deed and getting it registered does not arise. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- paid by her as security which is a refundable amount at the time of termination of lease and the agreement of sale was executed in favour of defendants 1 to 4 in which it was specifically mentioned that fifth defendant was authorised by defendants 1 to 4 for the purpose of sale. Now the defendants cannot avoid payment to the plaintiff on flimsy grounds. The fifth defendant was a retired Deputy Chief Engineer, Railways. He purchased the properties in the name of his daughters in the year 1967 but as they were residing in USA, Delhi and Hyderabad he was looking after the properties. When he was instructed by his daughters to sell away the properties, he took a decision to lease out the same and accordingly entered into an agreement with the plaintiff and not informed about the lease to his daughters till the filing of the suit. Though the lease agreement was entered in the name of his daughters, he cannot escape from the liability and avoid payment. The trial Court erred in relying upon Ex.A2 ignoring the Clauses 2 to 4 of the agreement of lease. 19. Though the lease agreement was entered in the name of his daughters, he cannot escape from the liability and avoid payment. The trial Court erred in relying upon Ex.A2 ignoring the Clauses 2 to 4 of the agreement of lease. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that basing on the agreement of sale when a party is entitled for specific performance or refund of an amount, why he is not entitled for refund of amount basing on the lease agreement. 20. In view of my above discussion, in the lease agreement it was clear that Rs.4,00,000/- will not carry interest, and therefore, I feel it reasonable to set aside the judgment of the trial Court and to allow the appeal directing the defendants to pay Rs.4,99,725/- to the plaintiff, with interest @ 12% per annum on Rs.99,725/- only from the date of suit till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation. 21. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed in the light of this final order.