Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.V.S.RAO
Gomi Bai - Appellant
Versus
Uma Rastogi - Respondent
Decided On : 12-29-04
Specific Relief Act, 1963 –Sections 15, 20, 16 (c), 19 (b) –Indian Contract Act, 1872 –Sections 37, 67 –Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 –Land issue – Bona fide Purchaser –The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that fifth respondent is not entitled to seek any benefit of the Specific Relief Act – He would urge that though the fifth respondent pleaded in her written statement that she is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, she failed to plead and prove that she is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of prior oral agreement of sale by Respondents 1 to 3 with the appellant –According to the learned counsel, D. W. 3, who is none other than husband of fifth defendant/fifth respondent made the statements in his evidence which show that the fifth respondent knowing fully well about the oral agreement purchased the property in collusion with the owners – Therefore, he pleaded not to deny enforcement of specific performance of oral agreement of sale in favour of the appellant –Held, It is the case of the Respondents 1 to 3 that the appellant who owns land at a short distance from their own land (suit land) requested permission to use the water from the well in the suit land for cultivating the appellants lands, that they permitted her and that it is Defendants 1 to 4 who dug the well and obtained electrical connection –The evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 on this is sought to be supported by the evidence of P. W. 3, P. W. 4 and P. W. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel for fifth respondent, all of them say that they are deposing based on the information given by P. Ws. 1 and 2 – Therefore, their evidence is of no assistance to test the veracity of the statements made by P. Ws. 1 and 2 – So to say, the appellant has not proved the allegation that either she or her husband have spent an amount of Rs. 60,000/- on the land – This coupled with the finding on other points for consideration would disentitle the appellant for alternative relief of payment of money as prayed – Appeal Dismissed
( 1 ) INTRODUCTION : the two appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree dated 19. 11. 1993, in o. S. No. 209 of 1983 on the file of the court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga reddy District, at Saroornagar. These appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
( 2 ) SMT. Uma Rastogi (hereafter called, the appellant) filed the suit being o. S. No. 209 of 1983 for specific performance of agreement of sale of immovable property entered into on 2. 3. 1971 with Defendants 1 to 4 (hereafter called, the respondents ). The Trial Court held in her favour on the question of validity of oral agreement of sale. It, however, granted alternative relief of compensation as prayed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in holding that the appellant proved the agreement and also awarding compensation to her, Defendants 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8 filed a. S. No. 209 of 1994. Aggrieved by judgment and decree in awarding only compensation and denying decree for specific performance of agreement, plaintiff filed A. S. No. 353 of 1994. The suit schedule land consists of agricultural land admeasuring Acs. 10. 35 guntas in S. No. 19 of Khajaguda Village, rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District which de facto is part of Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their status in A. S. No. 353 of 1994. II. Pleadings of the parties in brief (i) The case of the appellant
( 3 ) THE appellant in her plaint pleaded that her husband Sushilchandra Rastogi entered into oral agreement of sale of suit schedule property with Defendants 1 to 3 on 2. 3. 1971 for a total consideration of rs. 10,000/ -. The appellant also paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- whereafter she was put in possession of the suit schedule land. The balance of Rs. 7,000/- paid by the appellant to respondents in the year 1972. It was agreed between the parties that the vendors would execute sale deeds in favour of mr. Rastogi or his nominee after obtaining requisite permission from revenue authorities and authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act ). The suit schedule land is adjacent to lands owned by plaintiff where the appellant has been carrying on agricultural operations by raising rain-fed crops. The appellant dug three borewells in the suit land without any result and therefore, she dug a open well up to 60 feet depth in 1972 and constructed a pumphouse and servant quarters. Besides this, she dug 700 pits of 4 x 4 in an area of Acs. 4. 00 for raising grape plantation duly providing water channels from the well and raised fencing with stone pillars and barbed wire. The appellant also provided pipelines to take water from the well in the suit land to the adjacent land owned by the appellant where she was growing vegetables from 1973 onwards. Electrical connection was also obtained for motor pump set. The appellant spent an amount of Rs. 20,000/- for said development of land.
( 4 ) IN 1972 husband of plaintiff nominated M/s. Bralco Metal Industries private Limited to obtain sale deed as he has association with the said company and the land was intended to be developed jointly. After receiving balance of Rs. 7,000/- in may, 1972, Defendants 1 to 4 got prepared a draft sale deed in favour of nominee of the appellant. But the same could not be registered in view of the provisions of A. P. Agricultural Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) ordinance, 1972. The defendants assured that the sale transaction would be completed after getting clearance from the Government. Later A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Land reforms Act) came into force with effect from 1. 1. 1973 followed by enactment of ULC act. Therefore, registration of sale deed got delayed. But, the appellant continued agricultural operations. As the sale deed could not be registered, M/s. Bralco Metal industries withdrew from the transaction and mr. Rasthogi nominated appellant to obtain sale
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
