Back
2014 Supreme(AP) 1560
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Atluri Prabhakara Rao – Appellant
Versus
Chalasani Krishna Kumari – Respondent
Appeal Suit No. 1938 of 1994
Decided On : 20-09-2014
For the Appellant : V.S.R. Anjaneyalu.
For the Respondent: V.L.N.G.K. Murthy.
Headnote:
Specific Relief Act – Section 20 - Section 20(1) and sub-section 2(c) – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 464 - Indian Evidence Act – Plaintiff in Original Suit on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge preferred this Appeal against the decree and judgment - Plaintiff filed the Suit for specific performance of conditional agreement of sale dated seeking a direction against the defendant to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee after complying all formalities as per the terms and conditions of conditional agreement of sale the defendant failed to execute registered sale deed sought permission to obtain registered sale deed through process of the Court including liquidated damages of for breach of contract - Alleging that the defendant approached the plaintiff for financial assistance for construction of a building in vacant site purchased near V.B.M. College requested him to advance an amount of and after due deliberations plaintiff and defendant came to an understanding in pursuance to the understanding both of them entered into a conditional agreement of sale for sale of the schedule property; accordingly - Plaintiff advanced a sum of to the defendant on the even date and defendant undertook to repay the said amount with compound interest at the rate of with yearly rests within nine months from the date of agreement - It is further agreed that, in the event – Held, Agreement of sale he is entitled to claim damages if he sustained any loss on account of such breach, but here according to my finding Ex. A-1 is only a transaction of loan and not an agreement of sale but taking advantage of the financial crisis of the defendant, the plaintiff obtained Ex. A-1 incorporating an unconscionable condition to execute registered sale deed. Hence, Ex. A-1 is not an agreement of sale and failure to repay the amount under Ex. A-1 does not amount to breach of contract. At best the plaintiff is entitled only to recover the amount by filing a Suit basing on loan transaction - Court hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any damages since Ex. A-1 is not an agreement or contract of sale. From a perusal of the entire judgment of the trial Court coupled with the evidence on record there are no grounds calling for interference of this Court in the judgment and decree under challenge and in the absence of any legal infirmity in the finding recorded by the trial Court, it is difficult for this Court to interfere with the impugned decree and judgment and to set-aside the same and as such on discerning the entire material available on record, I find that the grounds urged by the plaintiff-appellant are without any legal basis and thereby I find that the Appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed - Appeal Suit is dismissed.
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in Original Suit No. 25 of 1989, on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge (Now, Senior Civil Judge), Vijayawada, Krishna District (for short, the 'trial Court') preferred this Appeal against the decree and judgment dated 30.04.1994. For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties in O.S. No. 25 of 1989 will be adopted throughout this judgment.
2. The plaintiff filed the Suit for specific performance of conditional agreement of sale dated 15.11.1987 (Ex. A-1), seeking a direction against the defendant to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee, after complying all formalities, as per the terms and conditions of conditional agreement of sale and, in case, the defendant failed to execute registered sale deed, sought permission to obtain registered sale deed through process of the Court, including liquidated damages of Rs. 30,000/- for breach of contract, alleging that the defendant approached the plaintiff for financial assistance for construction of a building in vacant site purchased near V.B.M. College, Vijayawada, requested him to advance an amount of Rs. 60,000/- and after due deliberations, plaintiff and defendant came to an understanding, in pursuance to the understanding, both of them entered into a conditional agreement of sale dated 15.11.1987, for sale of the schedule property; accordingly, the plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the defendant on the even date and defendant undertook to repay the said amount with compound interest at the rate of 18% p.a. with yearly rests, within nine months from the date of agreement i.e., by 15.08.1988. It is further agreed that, in the event, the defendant failed to pay the amount as agreed, shall execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee treating the amount of Rs. 50,000/- paid on 15.11.1987, as advance of sale consideration, execute registered sale deed receiving balance of sale consideration of Rs. 70,000/-. Thus, the total consideration agreed under the agreement is Rs. 1,20,000/-. Both the parties agreed that the time is essence of the contract. Despite the demands made by the plaintiff for repayment of amount received by her, she failed to repay the same, thereupon the plaintiff demanded the defendant to receive balance sale consideration of Rs. 70,000/- and execute registered sale deed, but she failed to comply the legitimate demand.
3. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of obligation, under the conditional agreement of sale dated 15.11.1987, but the defendant herself did not co-operate for completion of the transaction, though she handed over the title deed pertaining to the schedule property to the plaintiff on the date of execution of agreement (Ex. A-1). Therefore, he is entitled to claim first charge over the schedule property.
4. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 09.07.1988, marked as Ex. A-2, calling upon the defendant to perform her part of obligation under the conditional agreement of sale. The defendant having received the same got issued belated reply with frivolous allegations; thereupon, a rejoinder was sent to the reply by the plaintiff through his advocate. As the defendant failed to avail the option under the conditional agreement of sale, it is obligatory on her part to execute registered sale deed, receiving balance of sale consideration, she also committed breach of conditional agreement of sale; thereby, the plaintiff incurred liquidated damages of Rs. 30,000/-. Hence, the claim.
5. The defendant filed written statement denying material allegations of the plaint and resisted the claim of the plaintiff inter-alia raising the following contentions:
(a) The defendant denied the very transaction of conditional agreement of sale while contending that she completed construction of schedule house and house warming ceremony was performed in the month of October, 1987, th
