The Court found that the agreement of sale dated 11.10.2005 is true, valid and binding on the appellant and the respondent is entitled for the relief of specific performance. The Court also found that the defendant failed to prove that the suit land is more than Rs.12,35,000/- as on the date of execution of Ex.A.1. The Court held that the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

JUDGMENT :

This regular appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.8 of 2005 dated 25.10.2007 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

2. The defendant, before the trial Court, is the appellant. The respondent herein is the plaintiff.

3. The respondent instituted the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale.

4. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the trial Court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings.

5. The case of the respondent/plaintiff in brief in the plaint was as follows:

(i) The appellant has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property of an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in Survey No.5 of Pasupula Village since 21.12.1995, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed. He offered to sell the same to the respondent and respondent agreed to purchase the same for a consideration of Rs.12,35,000/-. On 11.01.2005, respondent paid an amount of Rs.35,000/-to the appellant towards advance, also agreed to pay the remaining amount at the time of execution of regular sale deed, thereby executed an agreement of sale and on the same day appellant handedover photostat copy of registered sale deed dated 21.12.1995 to the respondent. As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement of sale, respondent has to pay the balance sale consideration on or before 11.02.2005 and obtain a regular sale deed.

(ii) On 22.01.2005, respondent approached the appellant with balance sale consideration and requested him to receive the same and execute a sale deed in his favour. But appellant expressed personal inconvenience to receive the same and execute the sale deed and informed that he would receive the same on 05.02.2005 and asked the respondent to come to the Office of Sub-Registrar.

(iii) On 27.01.2005, the respondent received a legal notice got issued by the sisters of the appellant with false and frivolous allegations. Then the respondent approached the appellant, who inturn informed that he would come to the Office of Sub-Registrar on 05.02.2005. On that respondent went to the office of Sub-Registrar with balance sale consideration and waited till 05.00 p.m. on 05.02.2005, but the appellant did not turn up for the reasons best known to him. As the due date was approaching, respondent deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs.12,70,000/- in Andhra Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch on 07.02.2005.

(iv) Then the respondent received a legal notice dated 05.02.2005 from the appellant with false allegations along with Banker’s Cheque bearing No.750012 dated 05.02.2005 for Rs.35,000/-, wherein it was mentioned that the agreement of sale is cancelled. The Banker’s Cheque with mis-description is in the hands of the respondent un-encashed, because he is not agreed for appellant’s illegal attempt to cancel the agreement of sale. Then the respondent got issued a telegraph notice on 09.02.2005 demanding the appellant to receive the amount and execute sale deed in his favour. Hence, the suit.

6. The appellant/defendant denying all the allegations in the plaint and contending in the written statement as follows:

(i) Having come to know about the existence of false agreement of sale, appellant returned Rs.35,000/- to the respondent and issued a legal notice to the respondent to the effect that the alleged agreement of sale was cancelled. The personal deposit of Rs.12,70,000/- made by the respondent will not amounts to comply of condition of said agreement. The respondent is not entitled to get the sale registered as there is no consensus ad idem. There is no concluded contract between the parties. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

7. On these pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues for trial:

“1.Whether the agreement of sale