IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
K. Bhagya Lakshmi and Others - Appellants
Versus
B. Veera Venkatarao and Others – Respondents
First Appeal No. 389 Of 2000
Decided On : 18-02-2025
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 53-A - Appeal against decree for recovery of possession - Plaintiffs claimed ownership and sought possession of property from defendant who failed to fulfill contractual obligations under an agreement of sale - Defendant's claim of protection under Section 53-A rejected due to lack of evidence of possession and readiness to perform contract - Court emphasized the necessity of fulfilling contractual terms for claiming rights under Section 53-A. (Paras 1, 13, 40, 44)
(B) Contract Law - Essential elements for enforcement of agreements - The court reiterated that a party must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract to invoke protections under Section 53-A. (Paras 24, 38)
(C) Possession and Ownership - The court found that the defendant could not establish possession or compliance with contractual obligations, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and affirmation of the trial court's decree. (Paras 41, 44)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, owners of the property, filed a suit for possession against the defendant who had entered into an agreement of sale but failed to complete the transaction or pay the balance consideration. The defendant claimed possession under the agreement but was found to have not fulfilled necessary conditions.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's decree for possession was upheld, as the defendant did not demonstrate compliance with the agreement or readiness to perform her obligations.
Issues: Whether the defendant was entitled to protection under Section 53-A and whether the trial court was justified in ordering recovery of possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the defendant's failure to fulfill contractual obligations and lack of evidence for possession negated her claim for protection under Section 53-A.
Result: Appeal dismissed; defendant ordered to vacate the property within three months.
JUDGMENT :
(V. 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 challenging the decree and judgment, dated 28.01.2000 in O.S.No.95 of 1989 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry [for short 'the trial Court'].
2. The 1st appellant herein is the defendant and respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.95 of 1989. During the pendency of the appeal, the 1st appellant died and her sole legal representative is brought on record as 2nd appellant.
3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property after evicting the defendant there from, and for damages of Rs.2,200/- till date of suit, for future damages till delivery of possession and for costs of the suit.
4. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
5. The brief averments of the plaint in O.S.No.95 of 1989 are as under:
The plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint schedule site and other sites covered by S.No.93 of Rajahmundry Rural area. They have demarcated their land for house sites and made layout and got it approved by Town Planning department in the year 1971 and have sold some sites therein. The defendant purchased two sites of which she obtained a sale deed for one and having two sites of which she obtained a sale deed for one and having some doubts about the proposal of the Municipality laying a road through the suit schedule site deferred the purchase of the property and obtained an agreement for the suit schedule site from the plaintiffs on 14.04.1977 for Rs.2,527/-. The other terms of the agreement are that the plaintiffs should ascertain within one year thereafter about the release of the property from the proposed road through the suit land and the defendant should immediately pay the balance of sale consideration for obtaining the sale deed for the property. A sum of Rs.50/- was mentioned in the agreement on the promise that the defendant would pay in a day or two thereafter, but, even that amount was not paid. It was finally known that no road was being laid through the suit land, by the end of 1977 itself and the plaintiffs intimated the defendant through her husband that there was no impediment for completing the sale transaction and that they were prepared to convey the property on payment of the balance of sale consideration. The defendant intimated that she was not able to purchase the site and so the transaction was cancelled. This was in about April, 1978. The defendant never had anything to do with the site thereafter. Defendant in about June, 1987with fraudulent intention of making wrongful claim trespassed into the suit land and attempted to make some constructions in the site and plaintiffs thereupon got issued a notice to the defendant and the Municipality and other authorities on 01.07.1987 requesting the defendant to refrain from making any constructions on the suit land and the authorities not to permit her for making any such constructions in the suit land. The defendant kept quiet but on 14.12.1987 got issued notice to the plaintiffs requesting execution of sale deed and other reliefs on false and untenable grounds. The plaintiffs got issued reply notice on 19.12.1987 requested the defendant to put the plaintiffs in possession of the property but the defendant did not comply with the plaintiffs‟ request. The property is a vacant site and may fetch a sum of Rs.100/- per month if let out and the plaintiffs are entitled to claim damages at that rate from June, 1987 up to date. Hence, the suit.
6. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:
(i) The defendant admitted that the plaintiffs are the original owners of the plaint schedule property of an Ac.0-91 cents in Sy.No.93 of 13th Ward, within Rajahmundry Municipality. They formed a layout for the said extent dividing the land into several house plots. The plain
A party must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations to invoke protections under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
An unregistered possessory agreement does not confer rights to the property and cannot be enforced for possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
(1) Part Performance – To claim benefit under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 there shall be necessary pleadings – In absence of necessary pleadings, benefit under the provision cannot....
Civil Law - Dismissal of suit for permanent injunction and restoration of possession in suit property - provision of order VII, Rule II(b) that a Court has to come to a finding that relief claimed ha....
It is true that agreement for sale does not create any interest in property sought to be purchased as contemplated under Section 54 of the T.P. Act. Once the transferee becomes a full owner on transf....
Suit filed simpliciter for injunction where claim is founded purely to claim protection under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act is not maintainable. Such a suitor is not entitled to claim reli....
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract; failure to do so negates the right to enforce the agreement.
The doctrine of part-performance under Section 53A requires a valid contract and necessary parties; absence of these precludes claims under this section.
Protection under Section 53A requires the transferee to demonstrate readiness, willingness, and action towards execution of a sale deed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.