The unsuccessful plaintiff is appellant. Her suit being O.S.No.1037 of 1979 for specific performance having been dismissed by the Court of II Additional Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, on 31.08.1982, she filed instant appeal about three decades ago. During the pendency, sole respondent (sole defendant) died. The appellant also died. Their legal representatives are now fighting the case in respect of a residential cum commercial premises situated in high value business area of Hyderabad known as Gunfoundry. In view of the long pendency, this Court suggested the parties to explore the possibilities of settlement. The counsel made attempts but reciprocal offers were perceived to be ‘too high’. The counsel, therefore, discharged their duty of presenting the case in this long pending appeal. With these brief remarks, to begin with; the plaintiff’s case and the defendant’s case – referring to them as such; is noticed below.

Malanbee is owner of suit schedule property. The defendant was Deputy Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh. She was also having a dairy farm in Tandoor, looked after by her son Mohd.Usman. For her family needs, she borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the defendant. He agreed on condition of plaintiff executing registered sale deed as collateral security. He also agreed to reconvey the property. To give effect to the transaction, plaintiff executed registered sale deed on 17.08.1963 being document No.2370 of 1963. The defendant then executed deed of reconveyance on 18.08.1963 agreeing to re-sell the suit schedule property within five years for a consideration of Rs.31,000/-. On her request, on 14.08.1971 the defendant executed an endorsement on reconveyance deed extending the time for a further period of five years from 18.08.1971 to 17.08.1976. Both the parties also agreed to keep the said endorsement alive for a further period of three months but sale consideration was mutually revised upward to Rs.40,000/-. These facts are not disputed by the defendant.

The plaint allegations which are disputed by the defendant may now be noticed. Plaintiff approached the defendant several times with money requesting reconveyance, in vain. The defendant dodged the issue on one pretext or the other. On 16.08.1976, the plaintiff, two mediators and her son went to the defendant with cash of Rs.40,000/-. He refused to accept the money and execute registered sale document. He demanded Rs.60,000/- over and above the agreed amount. He was bent upon realizing the excess amount though he was enjoying the rents from tenants of two mulgies and other residential portions. Plaintiff then went to advocate Mr.Kamaluddin, who issued a telegraphic notice on 16.8.1976 requesting the defendant to be present on 16.11.1976 at the office of the Registrar, for executing and registering sale deed by accepting sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-. On 16.11.1976 the defendant did not turn up. Even thereafter the plaintiff went on requesting the defendant for reconveyance of the property, without any avail. On 21.05.1979 plaintiff sent two mediators to defendant’s house for negotiations. The defendant grew wild, abused and created the scene. The plaintiff’s son therefore filed criminal case being C.C.No.402 of 1979 under Sections 426, 504 and 509A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad. The plaintiff is ready and willing to perform her part of the contract but the defendant failed to perform his part of the contract.

The defendant filed written statement traversing the allegations of plaintiff which he disputed. He pleaded as follows. The plaintiff executed outright sale deed in his favour. The reconveyance agreement is an independent transaction. Time is the essence of the contact. As per the agreement dated 18.8.1963, the defendant agreed to reconvey the property within a period of five years but not before the expiry of initial three years for a sale consideration