Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GOPALRAO EKBOLE
Vuppalapati Butchiraju - Appellant
Versus
Rajah Sri Ranga Satyanarayana Ramachandra Venkata Narasimha Bhupala Bhalavayunim Varu - Respondent
Decided On : 12-02-65
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - CONTRACT FOR SALE OF LAND - DELAY IN INSTITUTION OF SUIT - FALSE REPRESENTATION - DISCRETION OF COURT - RELIEF OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AGAINST BONA FIDE PURCHASERS WITHOUT NOTICE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs entered into an agreement to purchase land from the 1st defendant for Rs. 6,000. The 1st defendant received an advance of Rs. 300 and executed an agreement to sell the land on 12/05/1953. The balance was to be paid on or before 4/06/1953, and the sale deed was to be executed and registered. The plaintiffs alleged that they took the balance of money on 4/06/1953 to the 1st defendant, who declined to receive the same. The 1st defendant entered into an agreement to sale or relinquish his rights in favor of defendants 2 and 5, and executed an agreement to that effect on 22-6-1953. In pursuance of that agreement, a relinquishment deed was executed on 27-11-1955 during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for specific performance and deposited the balance of the price in the court along with the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the time was not of essence of the contract, that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, and that the 1st defendant committed breach of the contract. It also found that defendants 2 to 5 had no knowledge of the agreement with the plaintiffs. The lower appellate court concurred with the opinion of the trial court that the time was not of essence of the contract and that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. It held that the tender of the entire balance of the sale price as pleaded by the plaintiffs, has not been proved by the plaintiffs and that it is false. It disagreed with the opinion of the trial court that the plaintiffs, in the alternative, are entitled to damages. The lower Appellate Court found that when the plaintiffs could not get the relief of specific performance, they cannot get even the damages.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of the contract for sale of land despite the delay in institution of the suit and the false representation made by them? 2. Whether the relief of specific performance can be granted against defendants 2 to 5 who are bona fide purchasers without notice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that mere delay without its consequences adverse to the interest of the defendants would not be enough to refuse the relief to the plaintiffs. The plea of delay was not raised by the defendants in the written statement nor was it shown that what adverse effects this delay had on the interests of the defendants. The court also held that mere false representation is not enough to disentitle the plaintiffs to the equitable relief. It has to be further shown by the defendants that this false representation resulted in adversely affecting their interest, or it altered the position of the parties in such a way that it would be inequitable to grant relief to the plaintiffs. 2. The court held that the onus to prove that they are bona fide purchasers without notice lies upon defendants 2 to 5. It is to their evidence the lower Courts ought to have looked to. The court found that there is no satisfactory evidence adduced by defendants 2 to 5 to show that they did not have any knowledge of the agreement which the 1st defendant had entered into with the plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the Lower Courts, and decreed the plaintiffs' suit with costs of all the courts.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is from the decision of the Additional District Judge, Nellore given on 6/04/1959 whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the 1st defendant and after disallowing the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs dismissed the plaintiffs suit in toto.
( 2 ) THE necessary facts in order to appreciate the contentions raised before me are that the 1st defendant entered into an agreement to sell his lands admeasuring 27 acres 35 cents for a sum of Rs. 6,000. 00 to the plaintiffs, and after receiving an advance of Rs. 300. 00, executed an agreement to that effect on 12/05/1953, Ex. A-1. It was agreed under the terms of the said agreement that the balance will be paid on or before 4/06/1953, and that the sale deed would be got executed and registered. It was stated that the plaintiffs took the balance of money on 4/06/1953 to the 1st defendant, who declined to receive the same. It was alleged that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but the 1st defendant entered into an agreement to sale or relinquish his rights in favour of defendants 2 and 5, and executed an agreement to that effect on 22-6-1953. In pursuance of that agreement, a relinquishment deed was executed on 27-11-1955 during the pendency of the suit.
( 3 ) THE plaintiffs treating the conduct of the 1st defendant as breach of contract, instituted the present suit for specific performance, and deposited the balance of the price in the court along with the suit. This suit was filed in April, 1955.
( 4 ) THE defence set up by the defendants was that time being of essence of the contract, the contract came to an end on 4/06/1953 when the plaintiffs failed to pay the balance of the price and got a document executed. They denied the assertion of the plaintiffs that the tender of the whole of the balance was made on 4th June. The 1st defendant stated that the plaintiffs came to the 1st defendant with a sum of Rs. 2,000. 00 only and wanted further time, but the 1st defendant declined to extend the time.
( 5 ) UPON these pleadings, the trial court framed several issues and after recording evidence adduced by the parties, awarded the plaintiffs Rs. 2,000. 00 as damages and declined to give them the relief of specific performance holding that the plaintiffs made a false representation to the Court that on 4/06/1953 they had tendered the whole of the balance of the sale price to the 1st defendant. The trial Court, however, found that the time was not of essence of the contract, that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and that the 1st defendant committed breach of the contract. It also found that defendants 2 to 5 had the knowledge of the agreement with the plaintiffs, is not established.
( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by that decision, both the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant preferred separate appeals. Plaintiffs preferred AS 78 of 1958, and the 1st defendant preferred AS 72 of 1958. These two appeals were heard together and were disposed of under a common judgment. The Lower Appellate Court disallowing the appeal of the plaintiffs allowed that of the 1st defendant and dismissed the plaintiffs suit altogether. It concurred with the opinion of the trial court that the time was not of essence of the contract in this case. It also agreed with the opinion of the trial court that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. It held that the tender of the entire balance of the sale price as pleaded by the plaintiffs, has not been proved by the plaintiffs and that it is false. It disagreed with the opinion of the trial court that the plaintiffs, in the alternative, are entitled to damages. The lower appellate court found that when the plaintiffs could not get the relief of specific performance, they cannot get even the damages. The lower Appellate Court, however, did not discuss whether defendants 2 to 5 had knowledge of the previous agreement with the plaintiffs. It d
AI
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
