Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 1054
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
B.S. Bhanumathi, J.
Lakka Thirupathaiah – Appellant
Versus
Vallabheneni Suraj Kumar – Respondent
Appeal Suit No. 107 of 2012
Decided On : 23-08-2022
P. Nagendra Reddy, Advocate, for the Appellant; Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, Advocate, for the Respondents
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must establish readiness and willingness to perform the contract throughout, not just till the date of filing the suit. The court has the discretion to grant or refuse specific performance, considering the facts and circumstances of each case.
Headnote:
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - AGREEMENT OF SALE - READINESS AND WILLINGNESS - DISCRETION OF THE COURT - REFUND OF ADVANCE AMOUNT WITH INTEREST - SECTION 20, SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTION 34, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, alleging that the defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite receiving part of the sale consideration. The defendant denied the execution of the agreement and claimed that his signatures were obtained under coercion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had established the execution of the agreement of sale but failed to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract consistently. The court also noted the significant time gap between the issuance of legal notices to the defendant and the plaintiff's inaction during that period.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had established the execution of the agreement of sale? 2. Whether the plaintiff had demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract? 3. Whether the defendant was entitled to refund of the advance amount paid by the plaintiff?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that specific performance is a discretionary relief and the court is not bound to grant it even if the plaintiff proves the agreement and performance. The court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, including the time gap between the issuance of legal notices and the plaintiff's inaction, and concluded that it was not a fit case for granting specific performance.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of specific performance, and decreed the suit for the alternative relief of refund of the advance amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the agreement till the date of the decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum.
JUDGMENT
B.S. Bhanumathi, J. - This appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment, dated 08.11.2011, passed in O.S. No. 82 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama.
2. The pleading of the parties, are briefly stated hereunder:
2(a) The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the defendant is the absolute owner of the land of Ac. 1.05 cents out of Ac. 1.78 cents in R.S. No. 335/1 and Ac. 1.00 out of Ac. 4.53 cents in R.S. No. 264, a total extent of Ac. 2.05 cents comprised in a single plot of Bhimavaram village, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District. The defendant sold away the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 6,15,000/- at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre under an agreement of sale, dated 27.09.2006, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff paid Rs. 80,000/- as advance under the said agreement on the date of sale with right of passage on southern side bund of Shaik Abdul Saheb from West to East to the tractors, D.B. Carts, ploughs etc to ingress and egress to the plaint schedule land. As per the terms and conditions of the said sale agreement, the defendant has to hand over his original sale deed, pattadar passbook and title deed book, adangals for 13 years and all link documents in original to the plaintiff within ten days from the date of the said agreement. The defendant further agreed as per the terms of agreement to get the plaint schedule land measured as per F.M.B. with his expenses and ascertain the actual extent of land for which the consideration is payable at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre after deducting the advance amount of Rs. 80,000/- paid by the plaintiff on the date of agreement and the defendant further agreed to clear the mortgage in the bank and deliver the payment receipt to the plaintiff and effect release of said mortgage in concerned Sub-Registrar's office and also get the entries in the pattadar pass book and title deed book cancelled at his expenses and the balance sale consideration of Rs. 5,35,000/- is payable to the defendant by the plaintiff within one month from the date of delivery of aforementioned documents to the plaintiff and measurement of land and discharge of mortgage on which the defendant has to register the regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee at his expenses. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by payment of balance sale consideration and ready to get the registered sale deed in his name. The plaintiff demanded several times by approaching the defendant and expressed his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, but the defendant is postponing the same on one pretext or the other by giving evasive replies. The plaintiff got issued a notice, dated 19.12.2006 to the defendant and he received the same and kept quite. Again, the plaintiff got issued a notice, dated 01.09.2008, however, the defendant wantonly returned the same. Hence, the suit is filed seeking specific performance of contract and alternatively for refund of the advance amount of Rs. 80,000/- paid to the defendant with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of payment till realization.
2(b) The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contending that the plaintiff who is resident of Vijayawada, came to Bhimavaram village and purchased the land belonging to one Uddandu Saheb situated at the Western side of the plaint schedule property for construction of factory. The plaintiff and his clerk made several attempts for purchase of the plaint schedule property as it is very essential for them for construction of the factory. On the basis of a false complaint given by the plaintiff, a case in Crime No. 74 of 2008 was registered on 10.10.2008. Under the guise of the said complaint, the plaintiff got harassed the defendant to sell the plaint schedule land. While the things stood thus, all of a sudden, during the midnight of 28.12.2008, th
