Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Tummala Suresh Chandra Chatterjee – Petitioner
Versus
G. Sita Ram Chander – Respondent
Appeal Suit Nos. 559, 560, 561, 562 of 2009, Tr. A.S. No. 267 of 2013
Decided On : 06-09-2022
Specific Performance - Agreements of Sale - Ac. 27-10 gts. - O.S. No. 145 of 2006, O.S. No. 146 of 2006, O.S. No. 147 of 2006, O.S. No. 148 of 2006, O.S. No. 149 of 2006 - [Stamp Act, Indian Contract Act, Transfer of Property Act, Specific Relief Act, Indian Evidence Act] - The court decreed all the suits for specific performance of agreements of sale, directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deeds in respect of the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant contended that the agreements of sale were fabricated and brought into existence only for the purpose of litigation. The court found that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into agreements of sale after duly passing on consideration, and the evidence established that possession was delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff. The court concluded that the trial Court was justified in decreeing the suits. The appeals were dismissed, and the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court were confirmed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed suits seeking decrees for Specific Performance of Agreements of Sale of land to a total extent of Ac. 27-10 gts. covered under nine sale deeds. The defendant contended that the agreements of sale were fabricated and brought into existence only for the purpose of litigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into agreements of sale after duly passing on consideration, and the evidence established that possession was delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff. The court concluded that the trial Court was justified in decreeing the suits.
Issues: Whether the agreements of sale in all the suits are genuine and binding on the defendant? Whether there is meeting of minds of plaintiff and defendant in entering into the agreements of sale? Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suits?
Ratio Decidendi: The court decreed the suits for specific performance of agreements of sale, as the evidence established that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into agreements of sale after duly passing on consideration, and possession was delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court were confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
1. The parties in all these appeals are one and the same and the point involved is also the same. Though separate evidence is recorded by the trial Court in each case, the contents are one and the same except to the extents of lands covered in each of the suit correspondent to the dates of agreements in each suit. Therefore, all these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by way of common judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant.
3. Plaintiff filed all the suits before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet seeking decrees for Specific Performance of Agreements of Sale of land to a total extent of Ac. 27-10 gts. covered under nine sale deeds. As already stated supra, the pleadings and evidence in all the suits are one and the same and the trial Court decreed all the suits on 28.07.2009. In all these appeals, defendant is the appellant.
4. A.S. No. 559 of 2009 is arising out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 145 of 2006, dated 28.07.2009 which was filed by the plaintiff seeking to direct the defendant to execute registered sale deed transferring and conveying all his rights, title and interest in the suit schedule property i.e. agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 6.19 gts. in Sy. Nos. 171/1, 160/E and 166/U, situated at Kallakal village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/- (covered under agreement of sale dated 27.10.2003) within the time fixed by the Court and further to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants or any one claiming through or under him from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also to award costs.
5. A.S. No. 560 of 2009 is arising out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 146 of 2006, dated 28.07.2009 which was filed by the plaintiff seeking to direct the defendant to execute registered sale deed transferring and conveying all his rights, title and interest in the suit schedule property i.e. agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 2.20 gts. in Sy. Nos. 159/VUU, 159/RU, 159/RUU, 159/LU, Ac. 4.37 gts. in Sy. Nos. 166/AA, 166/EE and 169 (Total land admeasuring Ac. 7.17 gts.), situated at Kallakal village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,05,000/- (covered under agreement of sale dated 30.10.2003) within the time fixed by the Court and further to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants or any one claiming through or under him from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also to award costs.
6. A.S. No. 561 of 2009 is arising out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 147 of 2006, dated 28.07.2009 which was filed by the plaintiff seeking to direct the defendant to execute registered sale deed transferring and conveying all his rights, title and interest in the suit schedule property i.e. agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 7.09 gts. in Sy. Nos. 160/E, 168/EE, 160/A, 168/A situated at Kallakal village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,80,000/- (covered under agreement of sale dated 10.11.2003) within the time fixed by the Court and further to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants or any one claiming through or under him from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also to award costs.
7. A.S. No. 562 of 2009 is arising out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 149 of 2006, dated 28.07.2009 which was filed by the plaintiff seeking to direct the defendant to execute registered sale deed transferring and conveying all his rights, title and interest in the suit schedule property i.e. agricultural l
The court upheld the validity of the agreements of sale and decreed the suits for specific performance, emphasizing the importance of passing consideration and delivery of possession in establishing ....
A valid agreement for specific performance requires clear intent and consistent evidence of readiness and willingness from the plaintiff to execute the contract, which was not established in this cas....
The sufficiency of evidence to prove the execution of an agreement to sell and discrepancies in possession and execution of the agreement are crucial in specific performance cases.
In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by High Court unless findings so recorded are shown to be perverse.
The plaintiff must prove the existence of a valid agreement and their readiness to perform, failing which the suit for specific performance cannot succeed.
When a defendant alleges coercion regarding the execution of a document, the burden is on them to lead evidence. A failure to enter the witness box to cross-examination results in an adverse presumpt....
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
