SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Sri V. Hari Haran and Sri Ch. A.B. Satyanarayana, Advocates
For the Respondents: Sri P.S. Venkatesh, Sri Sarang Afzalpurkar N. Raghavan and G.P. for Appeals

IMPORTANT POINT
Plaintiff will have to prove that he was ready and willing to get sale deed executed.

Headnote:Agreement to Sell—Suit for Specific Performance of Agreement—Plaintiff will have to prove that he was ready and willing to get sale deed executed while defendants will also have to show that their conduct is blemishless for suit to be dismissed—There are allegations and counter allegations of breach being committed by other party—Plaintiff is not in breach and is entitled to specific performance of contract of sale as his conduct vis a vis agreed clause of agreement1 is in line with settled case law on the subject—Plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific performance. [Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 20; Indian Contract Act, 1872—Sections 51 and 52] (Paras 13, 17, 37 and 40)

       Result: Appeals Partly allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

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

















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top