V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment in C. C. C. A. No. 183 of 1982 dated 21-3-1995 on the file of this Court confirming the judgment and decree passed in OS No. 613 of 1980 dated 14-7-1982 on the file of the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale in. , respect of 516 Sq. Yards in S. No. 127 at Yellareddyguda, Kliairatabad Taluk, Hyderabad District.

( 2 ) DEFENDANT is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. The suit in OS No. 613 of 1980 on the file of the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad was filed by the plaintiff respondent for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of 516 Sq. Yards in Sy. No. 127 at Yellareddyguda, Khairatabad Taluk, Hyderabad District after receiving Rs. 36,933. 00.

( 3 ) THE plea of the plaintiff was that through her father, the plaintiff agreed to purchase plot No. 25 in S,no. l27 belonging to the defendant in an extent of 516 Sq. Yards at the rate of Rs. 60. 00 per sq. yard and an agreement of sale was executed on 7-8-1978, and that the defendant agreed and undertook to obtain the required permission to alienate the suit land in favour of plaintiff and promised to execute the sale deed after obtaining the said permission and a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00was paid as earnest money on the date of agreement. It was averred that no specific time was fixed for completion of sale transaction but it was agreed in the same agreement that the defendant will be entitled to charge interest at 18% per annum on the balance sale consideration if the sale is not completed after the required permission is obtained as such the time is not the essence of contract. Thereafter, according to the plaintiff, the defendant on 31-10-1978 got issued a legal notice to the plaintiff informing him that he obtained necessary permission and that the plaintiff had to complete the sale transaction within 60 days from the date of grant of permission and further complained that the plaintiff did not co-operate with the defendant in completing the formalities upto 31-10-1978 and required the plaintiff to complete all formalities under the agreement within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, failing which the agreement of sale stands cancelled and advance paid will be forfeited. The plaintiff points out that the contents of the notice were contrary to the agreement.

( 4 ) AFTER receipt of the notice issued by the defendant, the husband of the plaintiff met the defendant personally and fixed 31-3-1980 to complete the sale transaction and agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the balance sale consideration, but, according to the plaint averment, the defendant did not comply with the agreement. Hence the plaintiff got issued a notice to the defendant on 14-4-1980 intimating her readiness to pay the balance consideration together with interest accrued thereon and requesting the defendant to fix a date for sale deed within a week from the date of receipt of the notice, The defendant issued the said notice, but did not fix any date.

( 5 ) THE defendant contested the suit and filed written statement admitting the execution of the agreement of sale between the parties. It was denied that the time is not the essence of the contract. It was also admitted by the defendant the issue of notice dated 31-10-1978, but the contents of which are not contrary to the sale agreement. According to the defendant the husband of the plaintiff never met the defendant to fix any date for completion of the sale transaction. The notice of the plaintiff. Ex. A3, dated 14-4-1980 was clearly an attempt to circumvent her own default. Inasmuch as the plaintiff did not get the transaction completed within sixty days of obtaining the urban land ceiling permission, nor within 15 days of receipt of defendant s notice, Ex. A2, dated 31-10-1978, the plaintiff committed breach of the co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document