Back
In the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
S. PARVATHA RAO, J.
Potluri Babu Rao and others - Appellant
Versus
Sistla Neelagriva Sastry and others - Respondent
Appeal Suit No. 765 of 1991 & Batch
Decided on : 18-10-1994
[CATEGORY] Specific Performance - [SUB-CATEGORY] Suit for - [MAIN LEGAL POINT] Plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract from the date of the contract to the time of the hearing.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Babu Rao, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 29-7-1979 (Ex. B-10) entered into by the defendants, D-1 to D-8, in his favor. The defendants denied the execution of the agreement and contended that it was not binding on the minor 8th defendant. The trial court found that the agreement was not true and enforceable and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed against the dismissal of his suit.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as undertaken by him and that on the facts and circumstances of the case, he was not entitled to the relief of specific performance claimed by him. The court also held that the plaintiff had not come to the Court with clean hands and that he had made false representations to the defendants. The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and upheld the trial court's judgment.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had established that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as undertaken by him? 2. Whether the plaintiff had come to the Court with clean hands?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as undertaken by him. The court noted that the plaintiff had not paid the balance of Rs. 15,000/- payable by 29-9-1979, as agreed to by him, and that he had not given any satisfactory explanation for his failure to do so. The court also noted that the plaintiff had not paid the amounts due to the creditors of the defendants, as required by the agreement, and that he had not given any notice to the defendants requiring them to give the list of creditors or in the alternative by tendering to the 1st defendant himself the amounts due and payable to his creditors. 2. The court held that the plaintiff had not come to the Court with clean hands. The court noted that the plaintiff had made false representations to the defendants, including the false claim that he had paid Rs. 5,000/- on the night of 18-3-1980, and the false claim that the defendants had asked him to pay the balance of Rs. 20,000/- that he had to pay by 29-9-1979 to the creditors.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and upheld the trial court's judgment dismissing the suit for specific performance.
JUDGMENT :
1. These five appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 8-4-1991 of the learned Subordinate Judge at Vijayawada in the two suits O.S. Nos. 248 and 453 of 1981. These two suits were clubbed together and evidence was recorded and documents were marked in O.S. No. 453 of 1981. Both the suits are for specific performance of their respective agreements of sale in respect of the same property described in the plaint schedule in O.S. No. 248 of 1981 and in the plaint-A schedule in O.S. No. 453 of 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Plaint Schedule Property’). Plaint Schedule Property comp rises of an exent of Ac. 1.05 cents of dry land situated in the village of Prasadampadu near Vijayawada in Krishna District (Ac. 0-65 cents in D. No. 63/10 and Ac. 0-66 cents in D. No. 63/11) within the boundaries given in the respective plaint schedules together with Dall Mill known as ‘Gopalakrishna Dall Mill’ with the machinery and the structures detailed and stated in the registered “lease-deed dated 28-2-1977” executed by defendants 1 to 8, who are common in both the suits, in favour of Sri Mahalakshmi Dall Mill, a partnership firm respresented by its partners Hemraj and his son, Madanlal.
2. One Potluri Babu Rao laid O.S. No. 248 of 1981 for the specific performance of agreement of sale dated 29-7-1979 (marked as Ex. B.10) executed by defendants 1 to 8 in his favour agreeing to sell the Plaint Schedule Property for a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/-. Defendants 9 and 10 in that suit are Manoharmal and Madanlal, tenants of the Gopalakrishna Dall Mill in the Plaint Schedule Property. This suit was decreed for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale under Ex. B-10. Defendants 1 to 10 were further directed to deliver vacant possession of the Plaint Schedule Property “with all its existing structures and machinery” to the plaintiff after the registered sale-deed was executed. The rest of the claim of Potluri Babu Rao was dismissed with costs. However, it was further decreed in this suit that “defendants 1 to 8 are entitled to receive the rents, if any, due from the defendants 9 and 10 till today (date of decree) and thereafter the plaintiff (Babu Rao) is entitled for the rents from the defendants 9 and 10 till the date of delivery of vacant possession” of Plaint Schedule Property to him and that “the defendants 1 to 8 are further entitled to receive all the amounts that were in deposit to the credit of these two suits made by virtue of the orders of this court (Subordinate Judge's Court at Vijayawada) and High Court”. A.S. No. 765 of 1991 has been preferred by Potluri Babu Rao questioning that portion of the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge in O.S. No. 248 of 1981 dated 8-4-1991 entitling defendants 1 to 8 to receive the rents, if any, due from defendants 9 and 1.0 till the date of decree and to receive all the amounts that were in deposit to the credit of these two suits made by virtue of the orders made by the lower Court and this Court, and claiming the same instead. A.S. No. 1211 of 1991 has been preferred by the 1st defendant questioning the said judgment and decree for specific performance against him A.S. No. 905 of 1994 has been preferred by defendants 2 to 8, who are the sons of the 1st defendant, questioning the said judgment and decree for specific performance against them. A.S. No. 1280 of 1991 has been preferred by the tenants Manoharmal and Madanlal against the said judgment and decree to the extent it is against them. Sri Mahalakshmi Dall Mill (hereinafter referred to as ‘Plaintiff-Firm’) is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 453 of 1981. Defendants 1 to 8 in this suit are same as the defendants 1 to 8 in O.S. No. 248 of 1981. The 9th defendant in this suit is Babu Rao the plaintiff in O.S. No. 248 of 1981. This suit is for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 17-7-1979 said to have been entered into by defendants 1 to 8 for the sale of the Plaint Schedule Property to the Plaintiff-Firm or
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
