A decree for specific performance of a contract is binding on subsequent purchasers, and they are not required to be brought on record as parties to the suit.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is filed by the appellant/2nd defendant challenging the decree and judgment dt.30.11.2012 in O.S.No.117 of 2004 passed by the XI Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Guntur at Tenali (for short, ‘trial court’).

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial court.

3. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under :

(a) The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are the parties to the sale agreement. The 1st defendant is the father of the 2nd defendant. The 3rd defendant is the married daughter of the 2nd defendant. The 4th defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant. Defendants 5 to 9 are the daughters of the 1st defendant. During the ongoing legal proceedings, the 1st defendant passed away, and Defendants 4 to 9 are brought on record as other legal representatives of the 1st defendant.

(b) The plaint schedule property is the 1st defendant's self-acquired property, which he purchased from Koganti Subbaiah and others under a Registered Sale Deed dated 04.04.1963. The 1st defendant subsequently demolished the old tiled house on the plaint schedule site and built a three-storied building (terraced building). The 1st defendant has absolute rights to the plaint schedule property.

(c) The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 entered a sale agreement for plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant, who is 82 years old, intended to sell the property along with the 2nd defendant because it was not generating sufficient income. The plaintiff, through her husband, approached defendants 1 and 2 to purchase the property. Eventually, defendants 1 and 2 agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for Rs.20,10,105/-, with an agreement of sale executed on 20.05.2004, receiving Rs.2,10,105/-as earnest money.

(d) According to the agreement terms, the plaintiff was required to pay the remaining balance of Rs.18,00,000/- within 75 days, after which defendants 1 and 2 would execute and register the sale deed and deliver possession of the property. If the plaintiff fails to pay by the due date, she must pay the balance with 12% interest. If defendants 1 and 2 defaulted, they would have to pay the interest on the earnest money upon registration of the sale deed.

(e) As defendants 1 and 2 used tactics to delay the completion of the sale transaction, the plaintiff had a registered notice issued to them through her Advocate stating that she has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract by preparing the balance of the sale consideration and stamp and registration charges and calling on them to execute and register the sale deed in her favour and deliver possession of the property.

(f) However, the daughter of the 1st defendant, i.e., the 8th defendant in this case, claimed a share in the property. The plaintiff published a notice regarding the sale agreement, inviting objections, and prepared the balance of the sale consideration and the required stamp and registration charges. Despite issuing registered notices, defendants 1 and 2 did not respond, and instead, they filed a caveat stating that the 1st defendant had gifted the property to the 3rd defendant.

(g) The plaintiff contends the gift does not affect her rights under the sale agreement. The plaintiff also alleges fraud on the part of defendants 1 to 3. In response, she filed a criminal complaint against the defendants under Section 420, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The plaintiff suffered mental distress and incurred approximately Rs.50,000/-. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of the sale agreement and, alternatively, claimed Rs.10,00,000/-in damages, including a refund of the earnest money of Rs.2,10,105/-.

4. (a) The 2nd defendant filed his written statement, which was adopted by the 1st defendant, ad