Back
2021 Supreme(AP) 29
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. VENKATA RAMANA, J.
Rajulapati Naga Malleswara Rao - Petitioner
Versus
Seelam Sarojalakshmi 4 Others - Respondents
Appeal Suit No. 794 of 1997
Decided On : 26-02-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: P. Sri Raghu Ram.
Point of Law: when the nature of defence set up by the respondents 1 and 2 is clearly established as false, it cannot be given any credence.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 96 - Relief of specific performance - Contract under an agreement for sale - Delivery of possession - Suit agreement for sale - Permissive possession - Issued a legal notice - Interim Orders - Seeking relief of specific performance - Appellant laid suit for relief of specific performance of contract under an agreement for sale against respondents for delivery of possession of plaint schedule property and for damages at per year till possession is delivered- Alternatively he requested for refund alleged to have had been paid under suit agreement for sale - Further case of appellant in plaint is that for payment of balance consideration time was fixed till in default to pay interest at that on appellant paid as part sale consideration for which an endorsement was made on suit agreement for sale - It was also stated in plaint that suit property was delivered in possession to appellant by 1st respondent along with title deed of this property viz sale deed –
Finding of the Court:
Though in a suit for specific performance a defence of this nature denying right title and interest to property cannot be set up by vendor above circumstances are considered only for purpose of testing veracity of defence set up by respondents 1 and 2- learned trial Judge in judgment under appeal also considered legal position in this context relying on - Therefore in light of material available on record when nature of defence set up by respondents 1 and 2 is clearly established as false it cannot be given any credence- At every stage they came up with false pleas in this matter –
Result:Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
This regular appeal filed under Section 96 CPC is directed against decree and judgment in O.S.No.85 of 1996 dated 17.06.1996 of the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bapatla. (It is a common judgment in O.S.No.85 of 1996 and O.S. No. 12 of 1983. No appeal is preferred against that part of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.12 of 1983).
2. During pendency of this appeal, the 2nd respondent died and the appeal was dismissed as abated by order dated 07.08.2011, since his L.Rs. were not brought on record. The respondents 3 to 5 were brought on record as per orders in A.S.M.P.No.1862 of 2011 dated 01.06.2012.
3. The plaintiff is the appellant. The respondents are the defendants.
4. The appellant laid the suit for the relief of specific performance of the contract under an agreement for sale dated 10.07.1986 against the respondents, for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for damages at Rs.1500/-per year till possession is delivered. Alternatively, he requested for refund of Rs.56,000/- alleged to have had been paid under the suit agreement for sale.
5. The property in dispute is described in the plaint schedule as under:
“Guntur District, Bapatla Sub Registrar Office, Bapatla Town, Bapatla Municipal area, Old ward No.15, New Ward No.13, Locality No.8, Door No.8-5-28, thatched house with brick and another thatched house walls bounded by
East : Golakaram Venkayamma
South : Compound wall of Agricultural college
West : Joint galli of Yadamma Venkateswarlu and Dande Veeraiah
North : Municipal Road
In between the above boundaries a thatched house with brick walls and thatched shed situated in an extent of Ac.0-10 cents equivalent to 484 Sq.yards = 404.7 sq.mts.”
It shall be referred to hereinafter as ‘the suit property’, for convenience.
6. Before considering and evaluating the material and evidence on record in this appeal, it is desirable to know the case of the parties in the pleadings.
7. (a) The case of the appellant in the plaint is that under the suit agreement for sale dated 10.07.1986, the 1st respondent agreed to sell the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.56,700/- in his favour and that on the date of the agreement, he paid Rs.5,000/- towards advance. Further case of the appellant in the plaint is that for payment of balance consideration, time was fixed till 10.08.1986, in default to pay interest at 12% p.a., and that on 16.07.1986, the appellant paid Rs.51,000/- as part sale consideration for which an endorsement was made on the suit agreement for sale. It was also stated in the plaint that the suit property was delivered in possession to the appellant by the 1st respondent along with the title deed of this property viz., sale deed dated 06.03.1984 as well as a photo copy of the Will dated 27.02.1983 of Sri Bolisetty Seetharamaiah.
(b) The appellant further stated that he was always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract under the suit agreement for sale and that, on account of the default of the respondents, he also got issued a legal notice dated 28.08.1986 to the 1st respondent who had sent a belated reply on 04.09.1986 denying his claim.
(c) The 2nd respondent is the husband of the 1st respondent and it is stated in the plaint that he instituted the suit for permanent injunction against the appellant in O.S.No.199 of 1986 in the court of the learned District Munsif, Bapatla, that made the appellant to suspect the 1st respondent in the context of performance of her part of the contract under the agreement for sale. It is also alleged in the plaint that at the request of the respondents they were permitted to remain in the suit property for a short period in spite of delivering possession to him, which permissive possession continued without handing him over the premises.
8. Both the respondents filed separate written statements denying the claim of the appellant in the plaint mainly contending that the 1st respondent did not execute the alleged suit agreement for sale n
