Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.
Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Rep by Its Law Officer, Hyderabad, and another – Appellants
Vs.
Rama Tubes Co., Rep by Its Sri. Maniklal Gulab Rai, Secunderabad and others – Respondents
Appeal Suit No. 998 of 1995
Decided On : 10-09-2018
Constitution of India, Art. 226 – Agreement of Sale – Breach of contract – Termination/cancellation on basis of failure of first respondent to commence and complete construction of building – Whether plaintiff entitled for Specific performance of Agreement – Held, Neither the readiness nor willingness which are necessary for granting a decree of specific performance are pleaded or proved – If land itself cannot be sublet or rented out the super structure constructed on the land (more so after the cancellation of allotment) cannot also be sublet or transferred – What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly – Leasing of property by first defendant to defendants 2 to 10 is contrary to agreed terms and that plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits – Cross Appeal dismissed (Para 39, 40)
Facts of the Case:
Agreement of Sale – Breach of contract – Termination/cancellation on basis of failure of first respondent to commence and complete construction of building – Whether plaintiff entitled for Specific performance of Agreement
Finding of Court:
Neither the readiness nor willingness which are necessary for granting a decree of specific performance are pleaded or proved – If land itself cannot be sublet or rented out the super structure constructed on the land (more so after the cancellation of allotment) cannot also be sublet or transferred – What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly – Leasing of property by first defendant to defendants 2 to 10 is contrary to agreed terms and that plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.
The appeal AS No.998 of 1995 is filed by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC) and another against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.1995 passed in OS No.151 of 1987 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The said suit is filed by APIIC and another against Rama Tubes Company and 9 others claiming reliefs of delivery of vacant possession, mesne profits etc.
2. Transfer AS No.3464 of 2003 is filed by APIIC against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.1995 passed in OS No.267 of 1993 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District. This suit was filed by Rama Tubes Company. The cross-appeal in Tr.AS No.3464 of 2003 are filed by Rama Tubes Company against APIIC aggrieved by certain findings in OS No.267 of 1993.
3. The case of the plaintiffs in OS No.151 of 1987 in a nutshell is that on 09.12.1976 they have entered into agreement with the first defendant-Rama Tubes Company and had given possession of the suit schedule property to the said company. As the first defendant company did not adhere to the terms and conditions, the allotment was cancelled by letter dated 19.12.1977. After a long time due to protracted correspondence, a fresh offer of re-allotment was given but as the same was not accepted, the suit was filed for delivery of vacant possession and mesne profits, as the plaintiffs state that the defendants let out the suit schedule property to others.
4. The defendants contested the suit on various grounds and also brought to the notice of the lower Court that a suit in OS No.267 of 1993 was filed for specific performance of the very same agreement of sale dated 09.12.1976.
5. Os No.267 of 1993 is filed by Rama Tubes Company for enforcing the agreement of sale dated 09.12.1976. The case of the plaintiff in the said suit is that they were given possession of the property and that the cancellation of the same is not correct. They state that they are always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed. Therefore, they state that they are entitled for specific performance. In reply thereto, APIIC states that there was failure on the part of the plaintiff and that the agreement was cancelled. Therefore, there is no agreement to be enforced. A fresh offer for re-allotment did not also fructify and they have also raised a plea that the case is barred by limitation.
6. The issues in OS No.151 of 1987 are as follows:
1. Whether the agreement of sale dated 09.12.1976 is true and valid and binding on the plaintiffs?
2. Whether the leasing of the property to D.2 to D.10 is contrary and illegal?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the property?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits? If so how much quantum?
5. To what relief?
The issues in OS No.267 of 1993 are as follows:
1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the contract between the parties is no more in force?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the specific performance of the agreement of sale?
4. To what relief?
7. It transpires that both the suits were tried together and evidence was let in OS No.267 of 1993. For the plaintiff, one witness was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.28 were marked. For the defendant, one witness was examined as DW.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.23 were marked. By a common judgment that was passed on 27.03.1995, the lower Court decreed the suit OS No.267 of 1993, which was filed for specific performance and dismissed the suit OS No.151 of 1987, which is filed for eviction.
8. As mentioned at the outset, AS No.998 of 1995 is filed against the decree in OS No.151 of 1987 and Tr.AS No.3464 of 2003 is filed against the judgment and decree in OS No.267 of 1993. In this Tr.AS No.3464 of 2003, there is a cross-appeal also.
9. This Court has heard Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned standing counsel for appellant/APIIC in AS No.998 of 1995 and Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M.P. Chandramouli,
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
