Important Point – Relief of specific performance is an equitable relief.

1. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dt.28.06.2001 in O.S.NO.588 of 1999 passed by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, granting specific performance decree in favour plaintiff in respect of 42 sq. yds. of site containing one Mulgi and one room situated in Jawaharnagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, the defendants preferred the instant appeal.

2. First defendant is the mother, defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are her sons and second defendant is her daughter-in-law i.e., wife of the deceased son—Ramalingam. The Plaintiff’s case in brief is that the defendants are the owners of the premises bearing No. SRT 344 admeasuring 170 sq.yards in Jawaharnagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad and out of the said property, they offered to sell a portion admeasuring 42 sq. yards consisting of one Mulgi and one room and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the said property for Rs.2,15,000/- and the defendants executed an Agreement of Sale dt. 2.8.1997 in favour of plaintiff and received an advance of Rs.5,000/- as part payment of sale consideration. It was agreed that the plaintiff should pay the balance of Rs.2,10,000/- at the time of delivery of possession or registration of the sale deed by defendants. Subsequently, the defendants periodically received Rs.22,000/- from the plaintiff and issued receipts. It is the further case of the plaintiff that inspite of personal request and issuing notices by the plaintiff asking the defendants to execute a register sale deed in his favour, the defendants did not yield and he came to know that they were making efforts to sell the suit property to some 3rd parties. Finally, on 10.05.1999 when the plaintiff sent her husband to pursue the matter, the defendants bluntly refused to execute a sale deed. The plaintiff averred that she was ready and willing to perform her part of contract. With these averments, she filed the suit.

3. The defendants filed common Written Statement denying the plaint allegations:

a) Their primary contention was that the alleged sale agreement dt. 2.8.1997 is a fabricated document as the said agreement was allegedly executed by D.4 and his wife alone, but the signatures of other defendants were present in the document. D.4 and his wife are not the exclusive owners of the suit property. The alleged notices and plaint averments would show that as if the agreement of sale was executed on 22.08.1997, but the agreement would read as if executed on 2.8.1997 and hence it was a forged document and the plaintiff came to Court with unclean hands.

b) It is further averred that though the defendants are owners of the premises bearing No. SRT 344 admeasuring 170 sq. yards but they are not the absolute owners. The said property was originally allotted to the husband of the first defendant namely K. Yellaiah by the Commissioner of Labour, Government of Andhra Pradesh on 8.6.1989. Subsequently, possession was handed over to K. Yellaiah and since then all the defendants were staying in the suit premises. K. Yellaiah paid entire installments to the Commissioner of Labour, but the Sale Deed was not executed in his favour inspite of his request. Subsequently, K. Yellaiah died on 7.05.1995. Thereafter also, the defendants requested the Commissioner of Labour to execute the Sale Deed in favour of defendants, but so far the Sale Deed is not executed in favour of the defendants. As the Sale Deed was not executed in favour of defendants, the question of their executing Agreement of Sale in favour of plaintiff does not arise. It was further contended that the plaintiff and her husband are pawn brokers and money lenders running their shop opposite to the residence of the defendants and due to personal needs and financial difficulties, D.4 approached the plaintiff and her husband and requested to lend him Rs.5,000/- as loan. While paying Rs.5,000/- to D.4 on 2.8.1997, the plaintiff and her husband obtained signatures of D.4 and his wife on two blank non judicial stamp papers worth Rs. 50/- each a