The main legal point established in the judgment is that an agreement for specific performance must have valid consideration, certainty of terms, and cannot be frustrated by actions contrary to the agreement. Additionally, the validity of a quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was affirmed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Second Appeal No.314 of 2010 arises out of the judgment dated 05.02.2010 passed by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in A.S.No.332 of 2008 confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2008 passed by the learned XII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.5851 of 2004. The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs therein seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 13.10.2003 and granting a permanent lease for suit mulgi in terms of the above agreement. By the judgment dated 29.08.2008, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

2. Second Appeal No.318 of 2010 arises out of the judgment dated 05.02.2010 passed by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in A.S.No.333 of 2008 confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2008 passed by the learned XII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.5833 of 2004. The said suit was filed by the respondents herein seeking decree for eviction of the defendants therein from ‘A’ schedule property, mesne profits at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month for wrongful use and occupation of the subject property. By the judgment dated 29.08.2008, the trial Court decreed the suit partly.

3. In Second Appeal No.318 of 2010 learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the quit notice dated 17.09.2004 issued under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is not valid and that the suit is barred by time. He would further assert that there is no proper termination of lease as there is a contract for delivery of a built-up area of 192 square feet and thus the eviction notice is void and infructuous. He would also assert that the trial Court failed to appreciate the terms and conditions of Ex.A2 agreement executed between the parties and wrongly held it as unenforceable and framed the following substantial questions of

4. In Second Appeal No.314 of 2010 learned counsel for the appellants would contend that both the Courts below wrongly held that the agreement of sale is opposed to the public policy as per Section 23 of the Contract Act and the trial Court without framing an issue in respect of the legality of Ex.A1 agreement dated 13.10.2003 erroneously decided it is one sided, no valid consideration and Ex.A1 is not enforceable, and thus, the reasoning and findings are unsustainable apart from framing the following substantial questions of law: law.

a) Whether the Lower Appellate Court committed substantial errors of substantial questions of law in confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court?

b) Whether the notice dated 17.09.2004 issued under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is valid?

c) Whether the suit is barred by time?

d) Whether the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court is in violation of Order 41, Rule 31 C.P.C.?

e) Whether the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction against the appellants in respect of B-Schedule property?

f) Whether the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits?

g) Whether the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled for eviction of appellants/defendants from A-Schedule Property?

h) Whether the Lower Appellate Court being the fact finding court is justified in confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court without considering the documents, evidence, and submissions made by the appellants in its perspective, independently, except saying that the lower court after elaborate discussions both oral and documentary evidence, came to a right conclusion holding that the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction in respect of B- Schedule Property and rightly passed eviction decree in respect of plaint A-Schedule Property and there is a valid quit notice and the suit is not barred by time and findings cannot be disturbed.?

a) Whether the appellants are entitled for specific performance of agreement dated 13.10.2003?

b) Whether the appellants are entitled for perpetual injunction against the respondents?

c)