Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 340
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
The Minerals & Metels Trading corporation Employees Co-operative House Building Society Limited, rep. by its Secretary A. Kailasa Rao, S/o. late Sri Surya Narayana - Appellant
Versus
The Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Rep by its Vice-Chairman Cum Executive Authority - Respondent
Appeal Suit No.393 Of 1998
Decided On : 01-07-2024
For the Appellant : P. Sri Raghu Ram.
For the Respondent: V. Surya Kiran Kumar (SC FOR VMRDA and MUDA).
IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that contractual terms in a sale deed are binding, and civil courts have jurisdiction to enforce such agreements unless explicitly excluded by law.
Headnote:
CPC - Civil Procedure - Section 96 - The court interpreted the terms of a sale deed, emphasizing the binding nature of contractual agreements and the jurisdiction of civil courts to adjudicate disputes arising from such contracts.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration that the defendant's demand for an excessive payment related to a land sale was illegal, following a sale deed that specified a tentative price pending land acquisition proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deed was bilateral and binding, with the plaintiff agreeing to pay any excess price determined after land acquisition, thus dismissing the plaintiff's claims.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the defendant's payment demand is excessive and whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the terms of the sale deed were clear and binding, and the plaintiff could not dispute the final price determined by the defendant based on the agreed terms.
Result: The appeal is dismissed, confirming the trial court's judgment.
JUDGMENT :
(Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.) :
This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 29.08.1997, in O.S. No.51 of 1995 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondent herein is the defendant in the said Suit.
2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the Suit in O.S.No.51 of 1995 for declaration that the demand of the defendant for payment of Rs.5,33,275.37 paisa is highly excessive and illegal and for consequential relief of permanant injunction restraining the defendant and its men from collecting any excess rate over and above the price already paid by the plaintiff to the Visakhapatnam Town Planning Trust under the sale deed dated 02.07.1973 and for costs.
3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.51 of 1995, are as under:
The plaintiff society was formed for the purpose of providing house sites to its members at Visakhapatnam and it is a registered society. At its instance, the Town Planning Trust agreed to allot 66 house sites measuring Ac.3.45 cents in Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam @ Rs.19.20 paise per square yard. The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.66,473/- as advance at the time of applying for allotment of house site, subsequently paid an amount of Rs.1,87,071/- on 31.03.1973 and an amount of Rs.67,412.60 paise on 17.04.1973. After receipt of the above said consideration, the Town Planning Trust got executed a sale deed by its Chairman in favour of the plaintiff society on 02.07.1973 as required under Section 45 of the Town Planning Act. The Town Planning Trust acquired title to the land by virtue of the Award No.2 of 1970 dated 31.08.1970 of the special Tahsildar for land acquisition, Visakhapatnam Municipality. It is mentioned in the sale deed that the price mentioned therein is a tentative price. The land acquisition proceedings in respect of the site were pending on the date of execution of the sale deed and the compensation payable to the land owners was not finally decided. The plaintiff shall pay the excess price if found due over and above the tentative price by virtue of the final and conclusive computation of compensation under the land acquisition proceedings for the lands acquired and of which the property sold to the plaintiff is only a part and by virtue of the charges for development and providing amenities finally determined by the Town Planning Trust. Subsequent to the execution of the sale deed, the Town Planning Trust was abolished and Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority was constituted in its place under A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975.
ii) The plaintiff received a letter in R.C.1508/71.E.1 dated 13.03.1986 from the defendant on 19.03.1986 wherein it is stated that final rate of the site is arrived at Rs.32.50 paise per square yard and an amount of Rs.2,22,083/- is still due from the plaintiff as on 31.03.1985 and requested the plaintiff to arrange the remittance of the amount on or before 31.05.1986 failing which it is said that further interest will be charged. In the above letter, it is alleged by the defendant that earlier letter dated 10.06.1985 was addressed to the plaintiff for the same purpose, but the plaintiff stated that no such letter was received by it. The plaintiff addressed a letter to the defendant dated 08.04.1986 requesting it to furnish the copy of the letter dated 10.06.1985. The defendant also demanded the payment of amount on or before 30.06.1986. Thereafter the plaintiff addressed a letter dated 24.06.1986 to the defendant reiterating its stand that the alleged letter dated 10.06.1985 was not received by it and requesting to send a copy of the said letter. Denying the liability to pay the enhanced amount, subsequently the plaintiff sent a detailed reply dated 29.08.1986 ch
