2021 Supreme(AP) 100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M.VENKATA RAMANA, J.
K. Prabhakara Rao S/o Venkateswarlu – Appellant
Versus
K. Soorya Rao S/o Sooranna & Ors – Respondents
Appeal Suit No.916 of 2003, Civil Revision Petition No.4873 of 2006, Tr.A.S.No.6 of 2018 & A.S.M.P.No. 3052 of 2017 in Appeal Suit No.916 of 2003
Decided on : 16-02-2021

Point of law: . Delivery of the suit land pursuant to this agreement under Ex.A1 attracts Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and whereby the appellant is in its continuous possession and enjoyment legally. It is not illegal and the respondents are bound to accept his legal possession of this land. Right to remain in this land in terms of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act thus stood protected

Headnote:

Transfer of Property Act – Section 53-A – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – Contract Act – Section 16 – Suit for specific performance – Plaintiff is the appellant in both these appeals and that he is the petitioner in CRP – Both these appeals are preferred against the decree and judgment in O.S. in refusing the principal relief sought in the suit for specific performance of contract under the suit agreement for sale and in allowing the counter claim filed by the deceased 1st respondent and his son 2nd respondent directing delivery of possession of item No.1 of plaint schedule. – Whether Ex.A1 suit agreement for sale was obtained by the appellant subjecting the respondents 1 and 2 to undue influence – Whether the appellant was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract under the suit agreement for sale by the date of the suit – Whether the respondent No.1 is entitled to seek possession of the suit land from the appellant – Whether the appellant is entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract basing on the suit agreement for sale and other reliefs sought in the suit – To what relief

Finding of court: There are clear statements in the testimony of D.W.1 which make out that Ex.A1 suit agreement for sale was executed by them consciously and voluntarily. – In his examination-in-chief D.W.1 stated that he and his father jointly executed Ex.A1 agreement for sale dated 14.10.1990 and further deposed that they received Rs.5,000/-as advance thereunder. – Referring to Ex.A2 endorsement on Ex.A1 agreement for sale, while admitting that they received Rs.40,000/-as a part of sale consideration, D.W.1 clearly stated in examination-in-chief itself that in terms of Ex.A1 suit agreement, he and his father delivered the suit land of Ac.5-00 to the appellant on 23.12.1990. – There is also reference to cancellation of that part of Ex.A1 suit agreement for sale in respect of item No.2 of plaint schedule by Ex.A2 endorsement. – Ex.A2 endorsement bears all these recitals. – Its execution as well as transaction thereunder are admitted by both the parties. – Accepting the contention on behalf of the appellant in this context in view of the material on record, the inference to draw is that the respondents 1 and 2 failed to establish that Ex.A1 was obtained by the appellant by undue influence from them and taking advantage of their close relationship. – Reasons assigned supra pointing out the preparedness of the appellant to perform and abide by the terms of Ex.A1 agreement of sale vis-à-vis conduct of the respondents 1 and 2 bars consideration of this plea of the respondents. – When once they consciously entered knowing full well about the impact and consequence of the contract under Ex.A1, they cannot complain that the delay had lead to unnecessarily enriching the appellant, who is in continuous possession of this land and who is trying to grab away the suit land for a song. – Conduct of the appellant as such is not blameworthy vis-à-vis Ex.A1 contract. – The respondents 1 and 2 did play their role in not only avoiding performance of this contract and to dilute its effect. – Therefore, on the material, it has to be held that the appellant proved being ready and willing to perform his part of the contract at all material times by the date of institution of the suit. – Therefore, he is entitled for the relief of specific performance thereunder in terms of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. – The findings recorded by the learned trial Judge in this context are not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. – Therefore, the findings so recorded by the learned trial Judge requires interference setting aside the same – Since it is held that the appellant is entitled for specific performance of the contract in terms of Ex.A1 agreement for sale, relief of ejectment of the appellant from the suit land sought by the respondents 1 and 2 is not permissible. – Even otherwise, as held in point No.2, possession of this land by the appellant stood protected by Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. – It is another ground on which the relief sought by the respondents 1 and 2 in this context has to be denied. – Therefore, the counter-claim raised by the respondents 1 and 2 in the trial Court basing on the material on record and on its re-appraisal should be rejected, setting aside the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge in this respect.

Result: Order Accordingly