Back
2011 (5) ALD 554
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
M/s. Rudram builders, a registered partnership firm, Secunderabad rep, by one of its partners Laxmikanth C. Seth
Versus
Asharafuddin (died) and not necessary & Others
A.S.M.P. NOS.1170 & 2269 OF 2010 & A.S.M.P. No. 169 of 2011 & APPEAL SUIT NO: 1306 of 2001
Decided on : 11-02-2011
Specific Performance – Relief – Appeal – The plaintiff in O.S. on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, is the appellant – The suit was filed for specific performance of contract of sale – The lower Court has refused to decree the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the payments pleaded by the plaintiff under Exs.A36 to A59 are not true and the payments being fabricated, the equitable relief of specific performance cannot be granted – Hence appeal – Held, It is needless to say that the law is well settled that a person seeking a relief of specific performance should show that his conduct is clean and fair – It is also to be shown that at all times, he was intending to perform the contract and there shall be no undue advantage to the plaintiff – The law is well settled that when a party to an agreement abandons the contract, and comes into terms with the vendor, he cannot seek a relief of specific performance – In this case, during the pendency of the appeal, it is clear that the plaintiff along with the defendants executed a sale deed in favour of the 8th respondent for consideration – Therefore, it clearly goes to show that the 1st plaintiff was not interested in seeking a specific performance relief on the basis of the contract and on the other hand, he accepted the title of the vendor and abandoned his right of the contract and joined in execution of the sale deed – Even if it is not a case of abandonment, it clearly goes to show that he got relief from the vendor and no further relief of specific performance against the vendor is open and not available – Therefore, these circumstances also clearly disentitle the plaintiff for the relief of specific performance – It is left to the parties to decide their rights in a separate proceeding and in the suit for specific performance, the parties cannot be permitted to create a platform for settlement of issues arising out of the illegal activities – Therefore, Court has no hesitation in holding that the conduct of all the parties deserves to be deprecated and all of them are trying to take chances with the process of law and court – A.S.M.P.s And Appeal Suit Dismissed
1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 549 of 1993 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, is the appellant. The suit was filed for specific performance of contract of sale dated 07.10.1987.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant is the father of defendant Nos.2 to 5. The 1st defendant is the owner of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.08.05 guntas in S.Nos.1120/1 and 1120/2, situated at Medchal village, Medchal Talug/Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having inherited the same from his ancestors. The revenue records show the name of the 1st defendant as Pattedar of the property. The plaintiff submits that the 1st defendant, on 05.02.1987, offered to sell Ac. 13.05 guntas of agricultural land in S.Nos.1120/1, 1120/2, 1113 and 1114/1, situated at Medchal village at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per acre. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 were also requested to join in execution of the documents. However, it was subsequently found that there is a litigation in respect of the land in S. Nos. 1113 and 1114/1. Therefore, the plaintiff had given up the land covered by the said survey numbers and an agreement of sale was executed on 07.10.1989 in respect of the land bearing S. Nos. 1120/1 and 1120/2, totally admeasuring Ac.08.05 guntas. The rate agreed to was Rs.75,000/- per acre and the defendants collected a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-by way of advance and earnest money. The plaintiff filed the agreement of sale dated 07.10.1987 in original. The defendants executed a sale deed in respect of Ac.03.00 guntas of land on 16.10.1937 in part performance of the agreement of sale. The defendants promised to execute the sale deed for the remaining property at a subsequent date. As per the agreement of sale the defendants were to produce the registered release deed from Katruka Shareholders, who are the sisters of the 1st defendant releasing their undivided share in the property in favour of the plaintiff, clearance certificate from Land Mortgage Bank in respect of the loan obtained by the defendants mortgaging the schedule land and also clearance of land revenue dues. However, in spite of repeated requests the defendants did not comply with their part of the obligation. But, the plaintiff made further payments of sale consideration totaling to Rs.3,64,341/- leaving a balance of Rs.10,660/-. On 22.05.1988, the 3rd defendant sent an agreement and that the agreement has been cancelled. To the said notice the plaintiff got a reply sent on 28.05.1988. On 01.08.1989. Smt.Qamarunnisa Begum, the sister of the 1st defendant, got a notice issued addressed to the 1st defendant as well as to the plaintiff claiming right over the property. On 18.03.1992, the 3rd defendant, on behalf of the defendants, sent a letter confirming and ratifying the agreement dated 07.10.1987 and also receipt of the amounts from the plaintiff towards sale consideration. On the said date, defendants collected a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The defendant were called upon even a that stage to produce clearance which they failed to do so. The plaintiff has been patiently waiting for the defendants to get clearance and register the sale deed in respect of Ac.05.05 guntas of land as per the agreement of sale dated 07.10.1987. The plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation by paying the agreed sale consideration and getting the document registered. However, the matter was postponed on account of the defendants only.
3. The 1st defendant died and the legal representatives were brought on record. The 3rd defendant filed written statement admitting the relationship with the other defendants and the ownership of the schedule properties. The fact that an extent of Ac. 13.05 guntas of land was agreed to be sold by the 1st defendant and execution of agreement on 05.02.1987 and on 07.10.1987 are admitted. The execution of registered sale deed for an extent of Ac.03.00 guntas on 16.10.1987 is admitted. As per the agreement
SupremeToday
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
