IMPORTANT POINT
Once a circumstance referable to a provision of law has intervened, it is for parties to work out remedies and Court cannot substitute its opinion.

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—The legal representatives of the sale plaintiff in O.S.No.520 of 1983 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, are the appellants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

3. The suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of an Agreement of Sale, dated 7.12.1979. The 1st defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) in the suit i.e., the 1st respondent herein, agreed to sell an extent of Acs.12.35 guntas of land in Survey Nos.14 to 16 of Sikenderguda Village of Rajendranagar Taluk, RR District, for a sum of Rs. 39,000. On the date of the agreement, advance of Rs. 2,000 was paid, and thereafter, a sum of Rs. 5,000 is said to have been paid to the wife of the defendant. Alleging that the defendant is not executing a sale deed in spite of repeated demands, the plaintiff got issued a notice. Thereupon, the defendant got issued a reply, stating that after the agreement was entered into, the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) were extended to Sikenderguda village, and that he submitted an application to the competent authority for permission, as required under the Act, The permission is said to have been denied and, accordingly, he expressed inability to execute the sale deed. Not satisfied with that reply, the plaintiff filed the suit.

4. The defendant opposed the suit, by filing a written statement. He did not dispute the execution of the Agreement of Sale. However, he pleaded that on account of the extension of the provisions of the Act to Sikenderguda village, he is incapacitated from executing the sale deed. Other grounds were also pleaded.

5. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 28.7.1988. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff filed S. No.817 of 1989 before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the appeal through judgment, dated 21.1.1992, and decreed the suit. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal.

6. Sri Mirza Safiulla Baig, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellants submits that though the provisions of the Act were extended to Sikenderguda Village, there was no impediment for the defendant to execute the sale deed. He contends that had the plaintiff taken proper guidance at the relevant point of time, he could have obtained the permission. He submits that the trial Court decreed the suit, after taking into account, the evidence on record and the relevant provisions of law, but the same was reversed by the learned Single Judge, without any basis. He further submits that even if there was any justification for setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court, on the ground that the provisions of the Act were extended to the concerned Village, the same does not exist now, in view of the fact that the Act has been repealed, during the pendency of the L.P.A.

7. Sri Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the defendant, on the other hand, submits that left to himself, the defendant was ready to proceed with the transaction, but the extension of the provisions of the Act to the concerned made it impossible for him to execute the sale deed. He submits that the decree of the trial Court has the effect of flouting and vitiating the provisions of the Act, and the error committed by the trial Court was corrected by the learned Single Judge. He further submits that though the Act was repealed, the state of affairs obtaining as on the date of filing of the suit must be taken into account. He contends that even otherwise, the relief of specific performance cannot be granted, at this stage.

8. The suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of the Agreement of Sale (Ex.A.l). The defendant did not dispute the execution thereof. However, he pleaded certain events that have taken place, subsequent to the agreement. Taking the pleadings before it into account, the trial Court framed the following iss