Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 51
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.
Aravapalli Krishna Murthy – Appellant
Versus
Syed Lal Saheb (Died) & 12 Others. – Respondents
Appeal Suit No.895 of 1999
Decided on : 21-05-2020.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI
For the Respondent: RAMA RAO GHANTA, GHANTA SRIDHAR, RAMA RAO GHANTA
Point of Law: Agreement to sell is not a document required by law to be attested
Headnote:
Evidence Act - Section 72 – Suit for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale – Whether Ex.A.1 agreement to sell was executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5? And whether it is true, valid and binding on the 1st defendant? (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree for specific performance of contract in terms of the agreement to sellWhether the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court are sustainable under law? And whether they warrant interference in this Appeal and whether the same are liable to be set aside – Held, It is significant to note that the evidence on record proves that as on date of Ex.A-1 agreement to sell, the 1st defendant is the owner of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, he is competent to execute Ex.A-1 agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5. So, it is a valid agreement and binding on the 1st defendant - 1st defendant is bound under law to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in terms of Ex.A-1 agreement to sell. He has deliberately committed breach of contract under Ex.A-1. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of specific performance of contract in terms of Ex.A-1 agreement to sell. Hence, this point is affirmatively answered in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs and against the appellant-1st defendant - Trial Court that the 1st defendant executed Ex.A-1 agreement to sell agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs is true, valid and binding on the 1st defendant is correct. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court are perfectly sustainable under law and they warrant no interference in this Appeal – Appeal Suit is dismissed
Facts of the Case:
the 1st defendant is the owner of the plaint schedule landed property, which is in an extent of Ac.0.50 cents. He offered to sell the plaint schedule property to plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.3 to 5 for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5 accepted the said offer and agreed to purchase the said property. They have paid Rs.5,000/- towards advance sale consideration to the 1st defendant on 14.05.1982. On receipt of the said advance sale consideration of Rs.5,000/-, the 1st defendant has executed an agreement to sell dated 14.05.1982 to that effect in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property to them for Rs.40,000/-. As per the terms of the said agreement to sell, dated 14.05.1982, the balance sale consideration of Rs.35,000/- is to be paid to the 1st defendant by 13.05.1983. Time is not the essence of the contract as per the terms of the aforesaid agreement. The plaintiffs, who are ready with the balance sale consideration and willing to have the registered sale deed executed by the 1st defendant, requested the 1st defendant to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.35,000/- and execute the registered sale deed in their favour in respect of the plaint schedule property.
Finding of the Court:
It is significant to note that the evidence on record proves that as on date of Ex.A-1 agreement to sell, the 1st defendant is the owner of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, he is competent to execute Ex.A-1 agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5. So, it is a valid agreement and binding on the 1st defendant - 1st defendant is bound under law to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in terms of Ex.A-1 agreement to sell. He has deliberately committed breach of contract under Ex.A-1. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of specific performance of contract in terms of Ex.A-1 agreement to sell. Hence, this point is affirmatively answered in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs and against the appellant-1st defendant - Trial Court that the 1st defendant executed Ex.A-1 agreement to sell agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs is true, valid and binding on the 1st defendant is correct. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court are perfectly sustainable under law and they warrant no interference in this Appeal
Result: Appeal Suit is dismissed
JUDGMENT:
1. Assailing the judgment and decree dated 19.01.1999 passed in O.S.No.106 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, whereunder the Suit filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance of contract was decreed, the present Appeal Suit is preferred by the appellant-1st defendant.
2. The parties will be referred to hereinafter as they are arrayed in the Suit for the sake of convenience. Factual matrix of the Suit may briefly be stated as follows:
3. As per the case pleaded by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, it is their case that the 1st defendant is the owner of the plaint schedule landed property, which is in an extent of Ac.0.50 cents. He offered to sell the plaint schedule property to plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.3 to 5 for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5 accepted the said offer and agreed to purchase the said property. They have paid Rs.5,000/- towards advance sale consideration to the 1st defendant on 14.05.1982. On receipt of the said advance sale consideration of Rs.5,000/-, the 1st defendant has executed an agreement to sell dated 14.05.1982 to that effect in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property to them for Rs.40,000/-. As per the terms of the said agreement to sell, dated 14.05.1982, the balance sale consideration of Rs.35,000/- is to be paid to the 1st defendant by 13.05.1983. Time is not the essence of the contract as per the terms of the aforesaid agreement. The plaintiffs, who are ready with the balance sale consideration and willing to have the registered sale deed executed by the 1st defendant, requested the 1st defendant to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.35,000/- and execute the registered sale deed in their favour in respect of the plaint schedule property.
4. The 1st defendant remained silent without any response. Whileso, defendant Nos.3 to 5 have given-up their right in the said agreement to sell, dated 14.05.1982 in favour of the plaintiffs after receiving Rs.3,000/- which was paid by them along with the plaintiffs towards their share of advance sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- and on receipt of further sum of Rs.3,000/- towards profit from the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos.3 to 5 have executed an agreement dated 09.10.1984 to that effect in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 became entitled to enforce the said agreement to sell dated 14.05.1982 and have the registered sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in their favour.
5. As the 1st defendant, who is liable to execute to a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs after receiving the balance sale consideration from them, has been evading to execute a registered sale deed, the plaintiffs got issued a registered legal notice dated 19.03.1985 demanding the 1st defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the registered sale deed in their favour. The 1st defendant received the said notice and did not give any reply to the said notice.
6. However, surprisingly, the 2nd defendant issued a registered notice to the plaintiffs, after the plaintiffs got issued the aforesaid legal notice to the 1st defendant, stating that he purchased the plaint schedule property from the 1st defendant on 09.09.1982 under an agreement to sell for Rs.30,000/- and he paid the entire money and possession of the property was delivered to him. It is alleged that the said registered notice by the 2nd defendant was issued in collusion with the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant cannot claim any right in the plaint schedule property under the alleged agreement to sell dated 09.09.1982. The said agreement is not valid under law. He is laying a claim over the plaint schedule property in collusion with the 1st defendant.
7. As the plaintiffs are ready with the balance sale consideration and as they are willing to have the registered sale deed executed in their favour by the 1st defend
