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

2021 Supreme(Telangana) 382

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the appellant : Sri Harin P. Raval, learned senior counsel for Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy.
For the Respondents: Sri Dadi Radhakrishna, Sri E. Ajay Reddy, learned counsel for Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 10 - Appellate jurisdiction - Appeal against dismissal of a suit for specific performance of land sale agreements dated 26.03.1997 and 27.03.1997 - Trial court found the suit barred by limitation, and that plaintiff did not prove possession of property - Plaintiff claimed readiness to perform contract, having paid substantial part of consideration and not fixed a timeline for performance by defendants who failed to obtain necessary permissions - Court allowed appeal, recognizing the relief sought was within limitation and did not constitute a delay. (Paras 10-12, 18-37, 57-60)

(B) Limitation - Article 54, Limitation Act, 1963 - Commencement of limitation period depends on notice of refusal of performance - Plaintiff's notices indicate readiness for performance and suit filed within statutory period. (Paras 18, 21, 22, 24)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a private company, sought specific performance of land sale agreements from defendants, who received substantial payments but failed to execute necessary documents or obtain required permissions. Legal notices were issued due to the defendants' refusal to perform.

Findings of Court:
The trial court erred in dismissing the suit, having overlooked the evidence of payment and lack of evidence of substantial refusal from defendants. Time was not the essence of contract as the necessary certificates were not obtained by defendants, and plaintiff was in possession.

Issues: 1) Whether the suit was barred by limitation? 2) Whether the plaintiff proved possession? 3) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform? 4) Whether time was the essence of contract? 5) Whether discretion for relief should have been exercised?

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the agreements did not stipulate a fixed time for performance; hence, limitation started from the refusal of performance. The court reaffirmed readiness and willingness to perform was sufficiently demonstrated, and the discretionary power for specific performance must favor the plaintiff.

Result: Appeal allowed in part, directing specific performance for the sale of 90% of the suit property, with conditions for registration laid out, and the refund of deposited balance amount to the plaintiff.

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

                          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 Back to top