P. RAMAKKISHNAM RAJU, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS in both the suits are the appellants. They filed O. S. Nos. 476 and 892 of 1983 on the file of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for specific performance of two agreements of sale dated 23-4-1979 executed by defendants 1 and 2 along with their father, marked as Exs. A-1 and a-2. Plaintiffs and defendants are common in both the suits, except Plaintiff no. 8 in O. S. No. 476 of 1983 who is said to be the subsequent agreement holder.

( 2 ) THE extent of land covered by those two agreements for sale are 4 acres1517 Sq. yards (Ex. A-2) and 12 acres 2280 Sq. yards and the price stipulated is at the rate of Rs, 81,000/- per acre. Plaintiffs have paid a sum of rs. 1,47,765/- and Rs. 17,420/- to the defendants towards part payment in respect of those two agreements for sale. These facts are not in dispute.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs a formal exemption or permission under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act - hereinafter called the Act has to be obtained. It is agreed under Clause (IV) of the said agreements that plaintiffs should obtain necessary permission or exemption from the Urban Land Ceiling act within a period of six months from the date of the agreements and the vendors should co-operate for getting the exemption from the competent authority. According to the plaintiffs, in pursuance of the agreements for sale, late Shridhar Vaman Naik filed a petition before the Special Officer, under the Act on 21-5-1979 seeking no Objection Certificate for alienation of the land. On 14-2-1980, defendant No. 1 in collusion with the second defendant as well as his father - Shridhar Vaman Naik, wrote letter to the plaintiffs stating that permission from the Government was not obtained by the plaintiffs within the stipulated period, and as such, the agreements for sale are liable to be cancelled and the earnest money paid to them would be forfeited, since the time is the essence of the contract. However, plaintiffs replied to the said notice on 24-2-1980 refuting the allegations contending that the permission from the urban Land Ceiling Authority is a mere formality and that they are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract by paying the balance amount and get the sale deeds registered, since the Sub-Registrar is prepared to register the sale deeds. Sri Shridhar Vaman Naik also wrote a letter dated 1-3-1980 stating that the defendants have no objection to register the sale deeds if the sub-Registrar has no objection for the same. However, it is stipulated that if the plaintiffs fail to get the same registered before 10-3-1980, the contract will stand cancelled. However, the first defendant by another letter dated 10-3-1980 extended time for registration from 11-3-1980 to 10-4-1980.

( 4 ) PLAINTIFFS in their reply dated 12-3-1980 stated that time is not the essenceof the contract and no time limit can be fixed for registration. While matters stood thus, to the surprise of the plaintiffs on 11-8-1980 the first defendant issued a registered notice through his Advocate terminating the agreements for sale. Hence the suits.

( 5 ) IN a separate written statement filed by the second defendant, execution of suit agreements (Exs. A-1 and A-2) as well as payment of consideration, except a sum of Rs. 8,000/- is admitted. The allegation that late Shridhar Vaman naik has executed a fresh agreement for sale on 23-7-1980 is not true and even otherwise, it is not binding on defendants 1 to 3. It is stated that defendants are not members of joint family inasmuch as there was a division in view of the decree for partition in O. S. No. 86 of 1972 on the file of the Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad passed on 7-3-1973. Therefore, late Vaman Naik is no more a Kartha of the joint family. It is claimed by defendants that time is the essence of the contract and inasmuch as permission under the Act could not be obtained by the plaintiffs within the time stipula

Click Here to Read the rest of this document