IMPORTANT POINTS
Vendee ready and willing to perform his part of the contract is entitled to decree of specific performance.
New plea cannot taken before the Supreme Court for the first time.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 6.8.2007 in Appeal Suit No. 2638 of 1993 and CMP No. 7692 of 2003, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein – the original defendant and has confirmed the judgment and decree of specific performance passed by the learned trial Court, the original defendant has preferred the present appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:

That the appellant herein – the original defendant purchased the suit schedule property admeasuring 17 acres 39 cents situated at village Billawaka, Thimmapuram Post, Kakinada Taluk, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh by a registered sale deed dated 6.10.1971. The land in question was subjected to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, which came into force in the year 1975. That vide order dated 20.11.1976, the Land Reforms Tribunal held that the appellant is holding an excess land to the extent of 0.0013 cents. It appears that a revision application was pending/proceedings before the High Court at the instance of the predecessor in title of the suit property. That the appellant herein executed an agreement to sell in favour of the respondent herein – the original plaintiff vide agreement to sell dated 30.12.1985 and agreed to sell the said property (suit property) for a sale consideration of Rs.2,45,000/. The respondent herein – the original plaintiff – purchaser paid the part sale consideration of Rs.55,000/-. The remaining balance amount was required to be paid within three months. According to the plaintiff, it was also agreed that the appellant has to execute the sale deed after measuring the suit land for arriving at the actual sale consideration payable. According to the plaintiff, time and again, he demanded the original sale deed in favour of the appellant dated 6.10.1971 as well as the final order passed by the Tribunal/final certificate issued by the Agricultural Land Tribunal and also requested the vendor to measure the land and execute the sale deed. However, as the vendor – the appellant did not execute the sale deed, though according to the plaintiff he was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and perform his part of contract, nothing further was done and therefore the purchaser – the plaintiff served a legal notice upon the appellant dated 6.4.1987. The said notice was replied by the defendant vide reply dated 14.4.1987. That thereafter the respondent herein – the original plaintiff instituted Original Suit No.16/1993 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram praying for a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30.12.1985 by directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by producing the original title deed and nonsurplus order in the land ceiling case of the defendant and her vendor. In the alternative, it was prayed to pass a decree for a sum of Rs.75,169.75 with interest from 30.12.1985 on Rs.55,000/-.

2.1 The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement. It was the case on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract as he was not having balance of sale consideration and therefore, he could not pay the amount and obtain the sale deed. It was also the case on behalf of the defendant that she purchased the land in question from one Y. Somayya Choudary and the land thereafter held in favour of the defendant and the Land Tribunal held that the said transaction between the defendant and the Y. Somayya Choudary was a bona fide transaction. According to the defendant, the same had attained finality. It was the case on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff was aware of the aforesaid transaction and even the order passed by the Land T