Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
D.S.R. VARMA and P. LAKSHMANA REDDY, JJ.
C. Manohar Reddy and others - Appellants.
Vs.
Alopi Shanker and others - Respondents.
First Appeal Nos. 2860 of 1996 and 672 of 1997
Decided on 15-9-2006.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. P.V. Sanjay Kumar, Counsel for the Appellants in F.A. 2860/96 and for the Respondents in F.A. 672/97.
Mr. A. Pulla Reddy, Counsel for the Respondents in F.A. 2860/96 and for the Appellants in 672/97.
Sale Agreement – Settlement – Whether the plaintiffs have always been ready and wiling to perform their part of contract – Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to demand the defendants to settle the claim of Sri K. Rajeshwar Rao as a condition precedent for compliance of Clause 2 of the agreement of sale wherein the payment schedule is incorporated – Whether the Clause 3 overrides the Clause 2 of the agreement – Whether the time is essence of contract of agreement – Whether the defendants are entitled to resile the contract on account of the plaintiffs imposing the condition precedent of settling the matter with Sri K. Rajeshwar Rao for compliance of Clause 2 of the agreement – Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for discretionary relief of specific performance of suit agreement of sale – Whether the trial Court erred in directing the defendants to pay Rs.1,00,000/- said to have been spent towards development of the land with interest thereon at 18% per annum" – Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is sustainable in law – To what relief – Held, Court is of the considered view that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs do not come to the aid of the plaintiffs in this case – Court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of contract and they violated the terms of the contract though the time was the essence of the contract and that the defendants are entitled to resile the contract on account of the plaintiffs imposing the conditions precedent of settling the matter with K. Rajeshwar Rao for compliance of Clause No.2 of the agreement – Plaintiffs are not entitled for discretionary relief of specific performance of suit agreement of sale. All these points are found against the plaintiffs – Trial Judge believed their evidence and directed the defendants to pay Rs.1,00,000/- spent towards the development of the land with interest thereon at 18% per annum along with Rs.2,00,000/- paid towards sale consideration with interest at 18% per annum – As the development is found on the land and it accrued to the benefit of the defendants, court do not find any reason to interfere with the said portion of the judgment of the trail Court – Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is sustainable in law, though for different reasons – Judgment and decree of the trial Court have to be confirmed and both the appeals are liable to be dismissed – Appeals Dismissed
(Per P. Lakshmana Reddy, J.)
As these two appeals are directed against the same judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.409 of 1988, dated 9-9-1996 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, we consider it expedient to dispose of both these appeals by way of this common judgment.
2. A.S.No.2860 of 1996 is filed by the plaintiffs having been aggrieved by the refusal to grant decree for specific performance and A.S.No.672 of 1997 is filed by the defendants aggrieved by a direction to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards development charges with interest thereon at 18% per annum.
3. The parties to these two appeals will hereinafter be referred in this judgment as plaintiffs and defendants, for the purpose of convenience.
4. The facts, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of these two appeals in brief, are as follows:
5. The defendants 1 to 5 are brothers and they entered into an agreement of sale, dated 2-10-1987 with the plaintiffs who are relatives and friends inter se agreeing to sell Ac.135-00 of land covered by Sy.Nos.152, 153 and 181 to 194 situated at Tummaloor village and also the lands covered by Sy.Nos.461, 478 and 479 situated at Mankhal village @ Rs. 10,000/- per acre. On the date of agreement, the plaintiffs paid Rs.1,00,000/as earnest money and further agreed to pay a sum of Rs.9 lakhs towards 75% of the agreed sale consideration in six monthly instalments commencing from 1-11-1987 and the remaining balance amount of 25% at the time of execution of registered sale deed or deeds. In pursuance of the said agreement, the plaintiffs paid the first instalment of Rs.1,00,000/- on 2-11-1987. On the same day, the plaintiffs through their advocates got published in the newspapers Eenadu and Deccan Chronicle under Exs.A-4 and A-5 informing the general public that they intend to purchase the said Ac.135-00 of land and inviting objections if any for their proposed purchase. In response to the said publication, one K. Rajeshwar Rao addressed a letter Ex.A-7 to the advocates of the plaintiffs on 5-11-1987 stating that the defendants have no right whatsoever in the lands and that he is the inamdar having right over the property and that there is a suit pending in O.S.No.128 of 1987 between him and the defendants on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District in respect of those lands. Further, on 7-11-1987 the said K. Rajeshwar Rao issued paper publication also under ExA-8 to the same effect informing the general public that he is the rightful owner of the said lands of Thummaloor village and the defendants have no right whatsoever in the said lands. In response to the said notice Ex.A-8, the defendants issued rejoinder publication under Ex.A-9 dated 20-11-1987 through their counsel stating that Sri K. Rajeshwar Rao misrepresented the facts and misguided the plaintiffs who entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants and that Rajeshwar Rao and his mother Yadgiramma have no concern with the above said lands and that the defendants father was the protected tenant and also purchased the same from Yadgiramma, the mother of Sri K. Rajeshwar Rao and Smt. Rambai and that after abolition of imams, the defendants obtained the occupancy certificate under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act and thus the defendants are the owners and possessors of the lands and that when Sri K. Rajeshwar Rao and his mother tried to interfere through some unsocial elements, the defendants have filed as 128 of 1983 against the said Rajeshwar Rao and his mother and that the said Rajeshwar Rao though contested initially, remained ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed in favour of defendants herein on 25-9-1984 and that subsequently an application in I.A.No.416 of 1984 was filed by Sri K.Rajeshwar Rao and his mother for setting aside the ex parte decree and it is pending. It is further stated in the rejoinder publication Ex.A-9 that Rajeshwar Rao with
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
