P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 31-12-1978 executed by respondents 1 to 3; or alternatively to grant a decree for partition and separate possession of 3/8th share of plaint schedule; or alternatively to grant a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of damages.

( 2 ) APPELLANTS 2 and 3 are sisters of Appellant No. 1. Respondents 2 to 4 are the sons and 5 to 8 are the daughters of first respondent. Respondent No. l is the absolute owner of Ac. 43-00 cents of agricultural land in Survey Nos. 113 and 114 of Moosapet village and Survey No. 580 of Kukatpally, Hyderabad, described in the schedule attached to the plaint. Respondent No. l offered to sell the said property and the appellants agreed to purchase the same at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre. The suit agreement was executed on 31-12-1978 by the respondents 1 to 3 for a total consideration of Rs. 2,15,000/ -. A sum of Rs. 116/- was paid in cash and a post-dated cheque for Rs. 10,000/- was given containing the date of 15-1-1979 towards advance. The third respondent again received a further sum of Rs. 1,000/- as part of sale consideration on 5-1-1979 and passed a receipt. However when the appellant had published a notice in Deccan Chronicle on 24-2-1979 inviting objections if any for the sale transaction, their Advocate received a notice dated 1-3-1979 issued on behalf of respondents 4 to 8 alleging that the plaint schedule property was the property of their father - late Gangaram and husband of the first respondent and that all the respondents have inherited the same having l/8th share each. The said notice was also followed by another notice dated 25-3-1979 issued on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 cancelling the suit agreement on the ostensible reason that the Urban Land Ceiling Authority has refused permission by its order dated 6-3-1979. the appellants through their Advocate sent a suitable reply on 2-4-1979. In spite of the same the respondents did not co-operate in executing the registered sale deed after receiving the balance of sale consideration. The appellants were all through ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Hence the suit.

( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 in their written statement stated that the property was acquired by their father-late Gangaram, though it stands in the name of the first respondent, widow of Gangaram. The property belongs to Gangaram and it was not the absolute property of the first respondent. The sale deed was nominally executed in favour of the first respondent at the instance of gangaram, that is why respondents 2 to 4 were also added in the agreement as vendors. The appellants were not ready with money at any time. Even the cheque dated 15-1-1979 issued by them, when presented was bounced for want of funds in the account of N. Venugopal Rao (P. W. 2 ). Even the permission sought for before the competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling was refused. Therefore, the performance of the contract has become frustrated.

( 4 ) RESPONDENTS 4 to 8 have also filed a separate written statement with similar allegations.

( 5 ) BEFORE the trial Court, first plaintiff was examined as P. W. I, besides examining his brother as P. W. 2. Exs. A-1 to A-13 were marked. Respondent no. 2 was examined as R. W. 1 and Ex. B-1 was marked on behalf of respondents.

( 6 ) THE trial Court after framing necessary issues found that the plaint schedule property belongs to the first respondent and she alone is the owner; performance of the agreement was frustrated because or refusal to grant permission by the competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling; and the appellants were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment, this appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiffs. The points for consideration in this appeal are: (1) Whether the appellants are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract at all m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document