IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
A. Rajasheker Reddy, Shameem Akther, JJ.
M/s. Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Debbad Visweswara Rao & Others - Respondents
Appeal Suit No.998 of 2010 and Writ Petition No.13334 of 2020
Decided On : 23-04-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal of previous specific performance suit (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants' claims concerning property ownership (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform (Para 8 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. trial court findings on evidence (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. litigation context in relation to ownership (Para 15 , 16) |
| 6. plaintiff's possession and investment in property (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. amendment of specific relief act applies to pending cases (Para 59 , 60 , 61) |
JUDGMENT :
(A. Rajasheker Reddy)
A.S.No.998 of 2010
1. This Appeal Suit is filed against judgment and decree dated 12.11.2010 in O.S.No.88 of 2002 wherein and whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants for specific performance in respect of agreement of sales dated 26.03.1997 and 27.03.1997.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 to 4 are the owners of the agricultural land admeasuring Acs.141.05 gts in Sy.Nos.300 to 309 in Budwel Village, Rajendernagar Mandal (for short ‘the suit schedule property’). The suit schedule property was purchased by Debbad Narayana, father of defendant Nos.1 and 2 through registered sale deed No.127 of 1969, dated 26.02.1969 from Mohd. Abdul Khader. The said D.Narayana and defendants 1 to 4 agreed to sell an extent of Acs.127.29 guntas out of the total extent to defendant Nos.5 to 10 and executed an agreement of sale dated 19.03.1994 and defendant Nos.5 to 10 were also put in possession of the property to an extent of Acs.65.23 gts. As per the terms of the said agreement, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and said late D.Narayana executed two Powers of Attorney in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6. Subsequently, on payment of balance sale consideration, the remaining land was also delivered to the defendant Nos.5 to 10, as such, the defendant Nos.5 to 10 were put in possession of entire extent of Acs.127.29 gts. In pursuance of the agreement of sale in favour of defendants 5 to 10 dated 19.03.1994 and two power of Attorneys executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 and D.Narayana in their favour, they agreed to sell an extent of Acs.38.15 gts of land covered by Sy.Nos.301 (part), 302, 303 and 304 (part) @Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, for a total sale consideration of Rs.38,37,500/- and for that purpose executed an agreement of sale dated 26.03.1997 (Ex.A5) in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant Nos.5 and 6 also agreed to sell an extent of Acs.1.33 gts of land in Sy.No.304 part to the plaintiff @ Rss.1,00,000/-per acre for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,82,500/- under an agreement of sale dated 27.03.1997(Ex.A4). Under an agreement of sale dated 26.03.1997, the defendant Nos.5 to 10 received advance sale consideration of Rs.34,70,000/- and also an advance amount of Rs.10,850/- in respect of agreement of sale dated 27.03.1997 was received by the defendant Nos.5 to 10. Thus, under the two sale agreements, out of total sale consideration of Rs.40, 20,000/-, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.34, 80,850/- and balance payable under the said two agreements is Rs.5, 39,150/-. It is asserted that in pursuance of the said two sale agreements, the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule property and since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and invested huge amounts. As per the two sale agreements, the defendant Nos.5 to 10 have to obtain necessary permissions and certificate from the concerned authorities and to furnish the same to the plaintiff within three months from the dates of agreement of sales but the defendant Nos.5 to 10 failed to comply the same, even though the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff also demanded the defendants on many occasions to execute registered sale deeds in terms of the agreement of sales by performing their part of the agreement i.e., by obtaining
Ahmed Saheb Abdul Mulla v. Bibijan
Balasaheb Dayandeo Naik v. Appasaheb Dattatraya Pawar
R. Lakshmi Kantham v. Deviraji
State of A.P. v. B. Ranga Reddy
Syed Quadri v. Syed Mujeebuddin
N.P.Thirugnanam (dead) by LRs v. Dr.R.Jagan Mohan Rao and others
Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & others v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (dead) through L.Rs.
Madina Begum & another vs. Shiva Murti Prasad Pandey
Rathnavati v. Kavita Ganshamdas
Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram
Babulal v. Hajarilal Kishorilal
Janardan Kishore v. Girdhari Lal
Bank of India Ltd., v. Jamsetji A.H.Chinoy
Syed Dastagir v. T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty
Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin v. S.Kartar Singh Mehta
Bal Krishna v. Bhagwandas (dead) by LRs (2008) 12 SCC 145
K.S. Vidyanandam v. Vairavan (1997) 3 SCC 1
Saradamani Kandappan v. S.Rajalakshmi (2011) 12 SCC 18
Amar Nath Om Prakash v. State of Punjab
Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of A.P.
London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton, 1951 AC 737, 761 : (1951)-2 All ER 1
Herrington v. British Railways Board
Mademsetty Satyanarayana v. G.Yelloji Rao AIR 1965 SC 1405
Banarsi v. Ram Phal reported in (2003) 9 SCC 606
Phoolchand and Anr. v. Gopal Lal
Smt. Jatan Kanwar Golcha v. M/s Golcha Properties (P) Ltd.
Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Ors.
Sahadu Gangaram Bhagade v. Special Deputy Collector. Ahmednagar and Anr.
State of A.P. v. B. Ranga Reddy
Nirmala Bala Ghose [Nirmala Bala Ghose v. Balai Chand Ghose
Smt. Chand Rani (Dead) by LRs v. Smt.Kamal Rani
Dr. T.M. Jayarama Reddy v. Bingi Sreeramaiah Chetty
Balasaheb Dayandeo Naik (Dead) through LRs v. Appasaheb Dttatraya Pawar (2008) 4 SCC 464
Chand Rani (Smt.) (dead) by LRs. Vs. Kamal Rani (Smt.) (dead) by LRs
Govind Prasad Chaturvedi v. Hari Dutt Shastri
Indira Kaur (Smt) v. Sheo Lal Kapoor
Silvey & others v. Arun Verghese
Lourdu Mari David v. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy
Govt. of India v. Indian Tobacco Assn.
Koteshwar Vital Kamath v. K. Rangappa Balica & Co.
State Of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal
Udai Singh Dager v. Union of India
State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh
Gammon India Ltd. v. Special Chief Secretary
Bansidhar v. State of Rajasthan
Thyssen Stahlunion Gmbh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Zile Singh v. State of Haryana
West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. v. State of U.P.
State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal
Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga and Co.
A.L.V.R.S.T. Veerappa Chettiar v. S. Michael
Gottumukkala Venkata Krishamraju v. Union of India
Radheshyam Kamila v. Kiran Bala Dasi
Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd.
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Income Tax Commissioner
S. Girdharilal Son and Co. v. B. Kappini Gowdar
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra
CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma
Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd.
Municipal Committee v. Hazara Singh
Prakash Chandra Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
(1) Agreement to sell – When a condition of a contract is breached and consequences ensue for that breach, a party cannot claim equity to escape such consequences.(2) It is nature of amendments which....
The grant of specific performance requires the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract and the court's discretion is governed by principles of equity and justi....
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.