Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Vundavalli Ratna Manikyam and Another – Appellants
Versus
V.P.P.R.N. Prasada Rao – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1204 of 2020, SLP (C) No. 36253 of 2014
Decided On : 06-02-2020
(a) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16 - Vendor and vendee both specifically stating that the suit property was sold to and possession handed over to vendee - Courts below rightly believed execution of agreement to sell. (Para 7)
(b) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 and 113 - Agreement to sell dated 1981 - Vendor was obliged to settle all disputes regarding the property - However acquisition proceedings set aside at instance of vendee in 1984/1985 - Vendee thereafter serving legal notice on vendor on 20.01.1986 for specific performance of the agreement - Cause of action accruing on 20.01.1986 - High Court rightly applying Article 113 and not Article 54 to hold suit for specific performance to be within limitation. (Para 7)
(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16 - Suit for specific performance filed within limitation - In the meantime vendee protecting the property and always ready and willing to perform his part of agreement - Vendee entitled to specific performance. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
One Nimmalapudi Ramaswami-husband of original defendant no. 1- was the original owner of the suit land who agreed to sell the suit land by executing agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981 in favour of the original plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 59,200/-. He received an advance sale consideration of Rs. 26,500/- on the same day. The time for payment of balance consideration amount was extended but during the extended period, the State Government initiated land acquisition proceedings for acquiring the suit property. The original land owner-Nimmalapudi Ramaswami and the plaintiff made a representation for deleting the suit property from the proposed land acquisition. Thereafter the State Government issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, vide notification dated 21.09.1981.
The said notification came to be challenged by the plaintiff and another by filing Writ Petition which was allowed and the notification was set aside. Appeal against the judgment of the High Court was dismissed by the Division Bench. After the death of the original land owner-Nimmalapudi Ramaswami, the original defendant no. 1-wife of Nimmalapudi Ramaswami executed a sale deed in favour of original defendant no. 2-Bogilla Satyanarayana Murthy. Apprehending that the wife of late Nimmalapudi Ramaswami-original defendant no. 1-Nimmalapudi Veeramma and the said Bogilla Satyanarayana Murthy may interfere with his possession, the original plaintiff- respondent herein filed O.S. No. 24 of 1984 against the aforesaid two persons for permanent injunction and obtained a temporary injunction.
The plaintiff claimed specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981 from oroinal. defendant no. 1. On her refusal the respondent-original plaintiff filed O.S. No. 55/1986 against the appellants herein-original defendants on 23.4.1986 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981. Alternatively, the plaintiff prayed to refund the advance amount of Rs. 26,500/- together with interest @ 18% per annum and award of damages of Rs. 25,000/-.
Both the aforesaid suits being O.S. No. 55/1986 (suit for specific performance) and O.S. No. 94/1989 (suit for permanent injunction) were consolidated and heard together. The trial Court believed the execution of agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981 in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court also believed the possession of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit. However, the learned trial Court denied the specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981 only on the ground that the claim for specific performance is barred by limitation.
The original plaintiff filed Appeal Suit No. 3511/1992 before the High Court. The original defendants in O.S. No. 55/1986 also filed Tr. A.S. No. 439/2006.
The High Court has allowed the Appeal Suit No. 3511/1992 preferred by the original plaintiff and has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit for specific performance and decreed the suit for specific performance applying Article 113 of the Limitation Act.
Finding of the Court:
Vendee is entitled to specific performance.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 25.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh in Appeal Suit No. 3511 of 1992, whereby the High Court has allowed the said appeal suit filed by the respondent herein-original plaintiff and has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in O.S. No. 55 of 1986 dismissing the suit and consequently decreeing the suit of the respondent herein-original plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981, the original defendants in O.S. No. 55 of 1986 have preferred the present appeal.
3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
That one Nimmalapudi Ramaswami-husband of original defendant no. 1 was the original owner of the suit land. That the said Nimmalapudi Ramaswami agreed to sell the suit land by executing agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981 in favour of the original plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 59,200/-. He received an advance sale consideration of Rs. 26,500/- on the same day. As per the agreement to sell, the balance sale consideration was required to be paid within four months. However, the time was extended making endorsement on the reverse of the original agreement to sell for another period of eight months. But during the extended period, the State Government initiated land acquisition proceedings for acquiring the suit property. The original land owner-Nimmalapudi Ramaswami and the plaintiff made a representation for deleting the suit property from the proposed land acquisition. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the representation made to the Assistant Collector, the original land owner categorically admitted that he has sold the suit land to the plaintiff for consideration and delivered possession of the land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also stated in the said representation that he has purchased the property under the agreement to sell and has taken possession of the property in question. That thereafter the State Government issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, vide notification dated 21.09.1981.
3.1 The said notification came to be challenged by the plaintiff and another by filing Writ Petition No. 3161 of 1983. The said writ petition came to be allowed and the notification came to be set aside by judgment and order dated 22.11.1984. Appeal against the judgment of the High Court came to be dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 4.2.1985. After the death of the original land owner-Nimmalapudi Ramaswami, the original defendant no. 1-wife of Nimmalapudi Ramaswami executed a sale deed in favour of original defendant no. 2-Bogilla Satyanarayana Murthy. Apprehending that the wife of late Nimmalapudi Ramaswami-original defendant no. 1-Nimmalapudi Veeramma and the said Bogilla Satyanarayana Murthy may interfere with his possession, the original plaintiff- respondent herein filed O.S. No. 24 of 1984 in the Court of District Munsiff Court, Ramachandrapuram against the aforesaid two for permanent injunction and obtained a temporary injunction. The aforesaid suit was subsequently transferred to the District Munsif Court, Alamuru which was registered as O.S. No. 188/1984 and later the said suit was transferred to the Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram and registered as O.S. No. 94/1989 claiming permanent injunction restraining Bogilla Satyanarayana Murthy and his men from interfering with his possession.
3.2 That thereafter the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 20.01.1986 to original defendant no. 1-widow of late Nimmalapudi Ramaswami and Bogilla Satyanarayana Murthy claiming specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981. Original defendant no. 1-Nimmalapudi Veeramma replied to the aforesaid notice vide reply notice dated 31.1.1986 contending that she has
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
