HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.
V. Kalavathi and Ors. —Appellants
versus
T.R. Srinivasan and Ors. —Respondents
A.S. Nos.498 and 521 of 2005
Decided on 19.2.2018
Result: Appeals Partly allowed.
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.—These two appeals arise out of the decree and judgment dated 07.03.2005 in OS.No.319 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
2. As these are first appeals, the parties are referred to as they are in the lower Court itself.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:—
The defendants Nos.1 to 3 had approached the plaintiff and expressed their willingness to sell the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same for consideration of Rs.4,25,000/- per acre. Pursuant to the same, the defendants 1 to 3 have executed an agreement of sale dated 21.07.1995. On the date of agreement of sale, the plaintiff had paid Rs.4,25,000/- to defendants 1 to 3 as a part of the sale consideration. On the date of agreement of sale, the defendants 1 to 3 have delivered the vacant and peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. Pursuant to the same, the plaintiff had constructed an out-house and also invested Rs.1,15,000/- for development. As per the agreement of sale, the time fixed for registration of sale deed was 90 days from the date of its execution. As per clause (3) of the agreement of sale, it was declared by the defendants that the plaint schedule property is free from all encumbrances and any kind of litigation. The plaintiff, as a measure of abundant caution, had issued paper notice in the daily News Paper Eenadu dated 30.07.1995 calling for objections from the third parties. In response to paper notice, the plaintiff had received registered letters from V. Mallesh, V. Srinivas, V. Krishna, V. Venkata Swamy and V. Jagan, all are residents of Yapral Village, Ranga Reddy District informing the plaintiff that the suit for partition in respect of the plaint schedule property vide OS.No.212 of 1994 is pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The plaintiff then issued a legal notice to the defendants 1 to 3 through his counsel calling upon them to furnish the copies of papers pertaining to OS.No.212 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The defendants 1 to 3 having received the said notice, failed to reply, till a reminder notice was issued on 05.10.1995. The defendants 1 to 3 failed to procure necessary documents along with Income Tax Clearance Certificate, so as to enable the plaintiff to get the sale deed registered in their favour. As per clause (10) of the agreement of sale, the defendants 1 to 3 had to conduct joint survey of the land to ascertain the actual extent of land for payment of balance sale consideration. The defendants 1 to 3 failed to conduct the joint survey of the above said lands. The plaintiff had got the land surveyed on 20.10.1995 through M/s. Veeaar Architects and Engineers and it was revealed that the defendants 1 to 3 are in actual physical possession of Acs.4.02 guntas of land, as against Acs.4.20 guntas mentioned in Pahanies. The sale consideration is thus proportionately reduced from Rs.19,12,500/- to Rs.17,21,250/-. The defendants, instead of procuring necessary documents for the purpose of registration, delayed the same. Despite several oral requests made by the plaintiff to the defendants to procure the documents for the purpose of registration, the defendants failed to do so and so the plaintiff got issued notice dated 18.05.1996 demanding registration of a sale deed. The plaintiff, as per the terms of agreement of sale, is ready with the balance sale consideration and in proof of the same, he filed a bankers certificate confirming the availability of Rs.20,00,000/- as short term fixed deposit in plaintiffs bank account. The defendants 1 to 3 failed to execute the sale deed and are avoiding the registration. Finding no other alternative remedy, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit.
4. The first defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the defendants 2 and 3 and the brief ave
1969 (3) SCC 120—Relied.
2004 (6) SCC 649—Relied.
2011 (12) SCC 18—Relied.
2017 (4) SCC 654—Relied.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.