Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ANANTA NARAYANA AYYAR, SATYANARAYANA RAJU
Nannapaneni Narasingarayudu - Appellant
Versus
Nannapeneni Ankineedu - Respondent
Decided On : 03-24-60
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 55(2) - COVENANT OF TITLE - IMPLIED COVENANT - VENDOR'S LIABILITY - DAMAGES - MEASURE OF DAMAGES - MARKET VALUE OF LAND AS ON DATE OF DISPOSSESSION - LACHES AND NEGLIGENCE OF VENDEE - FAILURE TO DILIGENTLY PROSECUTE CASE - LOSS SUSTAINED DUE TO VENDEE'S OWN FAILURE - VENDEE NOT ENTITLED TO DAMAGES.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, Nannapaneni Ramamma and Nannapaneni Ankineedu, purchased two items of property from Barla Mahalakshmi and Barla Veerayya, respectively. The defendants, Nannapaneni Narasingarayudu and Nannapaneni Ramakrishnayya, were the fathers of the plaintiffs and had executed a sale deed in favor of Barla Raghavulu, the father of Barla Mahalakshmi and Barla Veerayya. Nagalla Guravayya filed O. S. No. 9 of 1945 claiming possession of the suit properties and obtained a decree against the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of the value of the properties and damages, alleging breach of covenant of title by the defendants. The defendants contended that there was no covenant of title in the sale deed and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief due to their laches and failure to diligently prosecute the case in O. S. No. 9 of 1945.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was an implied covenant of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act, but that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief due to their laches and failure to diligently prosecute the case in O. S. No. 9 of 1945. The court held that the plaintiffs did not act with due diligence and prudence, as they failed to file an appeal against the decree in O. S. No. 9 of 1945 or convert the cross-objections into an appeal, despite having sufficient funds to do so. The court also held that the market value of the land for the purpose of awarding damages should be fixed as on the date of dispossession.
Issues: 1. Whether there was a covenant of title in the sale deed executed by the defendants in favor of Barla Raghavulu? 2. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to any relief due to their laches and failure to diligently prosecute the case in O. S. No. 9 of 1945? 3. What was the measure of damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act implies a covenant of title in every sale for consideration, unless there is a contract to the contrary. The contract to exclude the statutory covenant of title must be express and unambiguous. 2. A plaintiff is not entitled to claim damages for loss sustained due to their own failure to behave reasonably after the breach of contract. The test to determine whether the plaintiff's behavior is reasonable is to see whether they did what a prudent person might have reasonably done if the whole expense was to fall on themselves. 3. The measure of damages to be awarded to a vendee for breach of covenant of title is the market value of the property on the date of dispossession.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the defendants was allowed, and the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 12 of 1953 and O. S. No. 13 of 1953 were set aside. The suit was dismissed against all the defendants, including defendants 1 and 2, with costs throughout from the plaintiff-respondent Nannapaneni Ramamma. The memorandum of cross-objection filed by the plaintiff in A. S. No. 12 of 1955 and A. S. No. 13 of 1955 were dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of a common Judgment and Decree in O. S. Nos. 12 and 13 of 1953 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, tenali. O. S. No. 12 of 1953 is a suit filed by Nannapaneni Ramamma for recovery of rs. 12,983-4-3 against four defendants which is made up of (a) Rs. 8,880, value of the properties as on i8th April, 1952, the date when the plaintiff was dispossessed, and (b) Rs. 4,103-4-3, mesne profits ascertained in the final decree proceedings as payable by this plaintiff in LA. No. 1755 of 1952, in O. S. No. 9 of 1945, with proportionate costs. The learned Subordinate Judge awarded a decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 5,240-2-0 against the first defendant and for Rs. 6,288-2-3 jointly and severally against defendants 2 to 4 with proportionate costs. Defendants 3 and 4 have consequently preferred A. S. No 13 of 1955 against the above judgment and decree. Plaintiff has filed a Memorandum of Cross-objections in so far as it went against her.
( 2 ) O. S. No. 13 of 1953 is a suit to recover Rs. 7,538-12-7 against three defendants which consisted of (a) Rs. 5,120 as damages as the market value of the suit property on 18th April, 1952, and (b) Rs. 2,418-12-7 as damages ascertained as payable by the plaintiff to the decree-holder in O. S. No. 9 of 1945 with proportionate costs. The learned Subordinate Judge gave a decree in favour of Nannapaneni Ankineedu for Rs. 6,738-12-7 against defendants 1 to 3 in that suit with proportionate costs. Defendants 2 and 3 have preferred A. S. No. 12 of 1955 against the above judgment and decree in so far as it went against them. The plaintiff has filed the cross- objections as regards the disallowance of interest subsequent to the date of suit on the amount decreed. The appellants in both the appeals are the same persons. Nannapaneni ratnamma plaintiff in O. S. No. 12 of 1953 is the mother of the sole plaintiff Nannapaneni Ankineedu in O. S. No. 13 of 1953. There are four defendants in O. S. No. 12 of 1953 and three defendants in O. S. No. 13 of 1953. Defendants 3 and 4 in O. S. No. 12 of 1953 are defendants 2 and 3 in O. S. No. 13 of 1953. Nannapaneni ramakrishnayya died during the pendency of the appeals and in his place Nannapaneni Venkataratnam and Nannapaneni Bullamma were brought on record as his legal representatives as per the order of this Court in C. M. P. No. 6643 and 6644 of 1955, dated 24th November, 1955. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment by their names.
( 3 ) THE main allegations in the plaint in O. S. No. 12 of 1953 are briefly to the following effect. Akkayya and Achayya, the fathers of Nannapaneni Narasingarayudu and Nannapaneni Ramakrishnayya, for themselves and as guardians of their minor sons, executed a registered sale deed Exhibit B-1, dated 3rd June, 1900, in favour of one Barla Raghavulu. The said Raghavulu had four sons, namely, (1) Bhadrayya, the father of Barla Venkatasubbiah alias Suryanarayana, (2) Virayya, (3) Subbayya and (4) Rattayya, the husband of Barla Mahalakshmi. Rattayya died leaving behind him Barla Mahalakshmi. Raghavulu and his three surviving sons executed a gift deed Exhibit B-2, dated 28th December, 1932, settling land which is item 1 in O. S. No. 12 of 1953, towards the maintenance claim of Barla mahalakshmi. Under that deed, Mahalakshmi got half of it absolutely and had only a life interest in the other half, with a vested remainder to Akula Mahalakshmi, the daughter of Bhadrayya, after the death of Mahalakshmi. The said Akula mahalakshmi released her vested remainder to Barla Mahalakshmi under a sale-deed Exhibit A-13, dated 1st December, 1939. Thus, Barla Mahalakshmi became the absolute owner of this item of property, and she sold that item to nannapaneni Ramamma under Exhibit A-1, dated 1st December, 1939. Item 2 of the plaint schedule, which is the only other item concerned in O. S. No. 12 of 1953, was sold by Barla Bhadrayya, to whom it had come under the f
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
