Back
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
B. CHANDRA KUMAR
Sammita Sri Nataraj & Another
Versus
Kilaru Rangaiah & Others
Appeal Suit No.414 of 2007 & 439 of 2007
Decided On : 06-01-2012
B) SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963, Section 20:- In a suit for specific performance suit against the 2nd defendant who had acquired the property in question under a will, in pursuance of an agreement executed by the first defendants the GPA holder of the testatrix, non-joinder of other legal heirs of the testatrix is not fatal in so far as the lands were in fact held under the will by the 2nd defendant as bequeathed to him. (Paras 29 and 30)
C) SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963, Section 20:- Genuineness of the sale agreement executed by the 1st defendant cannot be doubted merely a on a plea of the 2nd defendant whose lands were alienated by the 1st defendant in pursuance of a GPA of the original testatrix just because there were some financial transactions between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in so far as the sale agreement is properly proved. (Para 31)
D) SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963, Section 20:- Where the possession of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is disputed by the defendants originally but later were admitted that the p\laintiffs forcibly took possession of the land, the contention of the plaintiff that they were given possession under the sale agreement is accepted. (Para 33)
E) SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963, Section 20:- The contention of the 2nd defendant in a suit for specific performance that that the sale agreement executed by the G1st defendant his father who holds the GPA executed by his grandmother is not maintainable as on the date of the filing of the suit, his grandmother had died and hence the GPA is automatically cancelled is rejected because the executants of GPA never cancelled it during her lifetime and he acquired her estate under a will which will be effective as on the date of her death. Paras 34 and 35)
F) LIMITATION ACT, 1963, Article 54 - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Sections 16 (c) and 20:- Where there is a specific clause in the sale agreement that the plaintiff has to pay balance consideration as on the date of demanding of execution of sale deed and there is no specific time limit for execution for sale deed and in fact the plaintiffs have been put in possession of the property in question already, held there is no bar for filing the suit within three years of refusing the execution of sale deed.
GPA Holder's Authority to Alienate Property: A testatrix who executes a will bequeathing property to her minor great-grandson and simultaneously grants a General Power of Attorney (GPA) to his father (her grandson) to manage and alienate the property retains the validity of alienations made under the GPA during her lifetime, as the GPA was not revoked, and the will takes effect only upon her death. The document styled as a will is not a trust deed absent evidence of such. [2000405720017][2000405720019][2000405720020]
Non-Joinder of Legal Heirs Not Fatal: In a suit for specific performance against a defendant acquiring property under a will, via an agreement by the GPA holder of the testatrix, failure to join other legal heirs of the testatrix is not fatal, as the defendant claims exclusive title under the will covering the suit property. [2000405720021][2000405720022][2000405720023]
Genuineness of Sale Agreement: The genuineness of a sale agreement executed by the GPA holder cannot be rejected solely based on prior financial transactions between the plaintiff and GPA holder, where the agreement is proved through attestors, scribe, and admissions, without evidence of fabrication via blank papers. [2000405720024][2000405720025][2000405720027][2000405720028][2000405720029]
Plaintiff's Possession Accepted: Where defendants initially dispute but later admit plaintiff's forcible possession, the plaintiff's claim of possession under the sale agreement is upheld, supported by witness evidence and defendants' inconsistent lessee claims. [2000405720031][2000405720032]
Agreement Binding Despite Testatrix's Death: A sale agreement executed by GPA holder during testatrix's lifetime binds her successors (legatee under will), as GPA was irrevocable during her life, entire consideration was paid, and possession delivered; GPA termination post-death does not invalidate the pre-existing contract. Alienation during legatee's minority irrelevant as GPA predates will's effect. [2000405720030][2000405720033][2000405720034] (!)
Limitation Not Barred: Under Article 54 Limitation Act, where sale agreement fixes time for balance payment (complied with) but no fixed date for sale deed execution ("as and when demanded"), limitation runs from refusal notice (reply dated 31.10.2001), suit filed within 3 years thereafter not barred; possession and continuous readiness suffice under S.16(c) Specific Relief Act. No laches disentitling relief where defendants took false pleas. [2000405720035][2000405720036][2000405720060][2000405720061] (!)
Discretionary Relief Granted with Modification: Specific performance decreed against legatee (declared owner in prior suit), subject to plaintiffs paying balance consideration (Rs.1,00,000/-) plus 6% interest from 17.09.1995 to 17.10.2001 as equitable compensation for delay and value increase; first defendant not directed to execute post-GPA termination. Any pendente lite alienations void. (!) [2000405720064][2000405720067] (!)
Since both these appeals arise out of the common set of facts, issues involved and the parties are one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment dated 27.04.2007 passed in O.S.No.88 of 2003 by the Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, whereby and whereunder, the suit instituted by the respondents herein has been decreed granting a decree of specific performance of contract with costs.
3. The first defendant before the Court below is the appellant in A.S.No.439 of 2007 and the second defendant before the Court below is the appellant in A.S.No.414 of 2007. The respondents in both the appeals are also the respondents before the Court below. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Court below.
Brief facts of the case
4. Acs.13.50 cents of dry land out of Acs.42.20 cents of land in R.S.No.304-1A situated at Chintalapudi Village & Sub-Division, West Godavari District is the suit schedule land, which originally belonged to one Sayani Syamalamba. Sayani Shyam Sunder Rao, Sayani Madhava Rao, Sayani Babu Nagendra Prasad, Sayani Venugopala Rao, Sammita Kasturi Bai, Chilamkurthi Baby Sarojini are the children of aid Sayani Syamalamba. The sons of Sayani Syamalamba have partitioned their property though a registered partition Deed in the year 1990. Sammita Subhash Chandra Bose, the first defendant in the suit, is the son of Sammita Kasturi Bai and thus the grand son of Sayini Syamalamba. Sammita Sri Nataraj, the second defendant in the suit, is the son of Sammita Subhash Chandra Bose and thus the great grand son of Sayani Syamalamba. Sayani Syamalamba became the owner of the suit schedule land by virtue of a registered settlement deed executed by her brother – S.Basava Nancharaiah on 09.11.1955. Sayani Syamalamba, stating that her sons got sufficient properties in their family partition and that her daughter have other properties, executed a Will on 09.11.1990 in Ex.B.1 in favour of her great grand son – Sammita Sri Nataraj, bequeathing the suit schedule land to him and further contended that since said Sammita Sri Nataraj was a minor on the date of execution of Ex.B.1 Will, his father, i.e., the first defendant herein would act as his guardian till said Sammita Sri Nataraj (hereinafter referred to as the second defendant) becomes major. She had also mentioned that the first defendant would protect the properties and develop the same and handover the same to the second defendant and further contended that Ex.B.1 Will will come into force after her death. She had also reserved the right to cancel and modify Ex.B.1 Will. However, on the same day of execution of Ex.B.1 Will, i.e., on 09.11.1990, she executed a GPA in Ex.A.15 and got it registered empowering the first defendant to sell the land and furnish accounts. The first defendant is also empowered to mortgage the said land. Sayani Syamalamba died on 27.03.1999.
5. The plaintiffs specific case is that the first defendant, as the GPA holder of Sayani Syamalamba, offered to sell the suit schedule land for the purpose of discharging his debts and to meet the medical expenses of Sayani Syamalamba and sale consideration was determined as Rs.3,00,000/-. Accordingly, the first defendant had executed an agreement of sale dated 31.03.1995, in favour of the plaintiff having received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/-on or before 19.09.1995. He promised to execute a registered sale deed as and when demanded by the plaintiffs after receiving the balance of sale consideration amount. Ex.A.1 is the agreement of sale. Before the stipulated date, the first defendant acknowledged the receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-and executed a separate letter of acknowledgement dated 17.09.1995 in favour of the plaintiffs and on the same day, delivered possession of the s
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
