The court upheld the principles of partial specific performance in contractual agreements, emphasizing the need for assessing readiness and willingness through the overall conduct of parties, alongside the doctrine of estoppel in property law.

JUDGMENT :

Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J.

This Appeal Suit is preferred by the appellant/defendant No.1 assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 24.11.2011 in O.S. No.29 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement of sale was partly decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS:

3. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 agreed to sell the schedule property, an industrial shed bearing No.E-5, Padma Nagar, Karimnagar, admeasuring 1300 sq. yards (approximately 11 guntas) with a plinth area of 229.27 sq. meters, for a total consideration of Rs.12,50,000/-. An advance of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid under agreement dated 11.03.2003, followed by subsequent payments aggregating to Rs.7,00,000/-. A further sum of Rs.40,000/- was allegedly collected by defendant No.1 for remittance to APIIC Ltd., though the plaintiff later discovered that APIIC had already executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 on 23.03.2005.

4. Despite repeated demands, defendant No.1 avoided execution of the sale deed, and eventually, in collusion with defendant No.2, conveyed part of the property to defendant No.2 under a registered sale deed dated 17.03.2006. The plaintiff, claiming continuous readiness and willingness, issued a legal notice dated 16.11.2006 and instituted the present suit.

5. Defendant No.1 admitted execution of the agreement and receipt of Rs.7,00,000/- but pleaded that the plaintiff defaulted in paying the balance within the stipulated time of one month. He contended that time was the essence of the contract and that, due to the plaintiff’s default, he had to sell part of the property to defendant No.2.

II. ISSUES FRAMED BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT:

6. On the basis of pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether defendant No.1 entered into an agreement of sale on 03.11.2003 and received Rs.7 lakhs as consideration out of the total consideration of Rs.12,50,000/-?

2. Whether defendant No.1 received Rs.40,000/- on 27.09.2005 with a promise to secure a registered sale deed from APIIC Ltd.?

3. Whether the further sum of Rs.1,70,000/- alleged to have been received is unconnected to the contract of sale?

4. Whether defendant No.1 had clear title to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff?

5. Whether the suit was barred by limitation?

6. Whether defendant No.2 had knowledge of the agreement of sale dated 03.11.2003 and whether it bound him?

7. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance?

8. To what relief?

III. EVIDENCE ON RECORD:

7. To substantiate his claim, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and three other witnesses (PW2 – his brother, PW3 – scribe of Ex.A1, and PW4 – attestor). Exhibits A1 to A11 were marked.

8. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1 and defendant No.2 as DW2. Exhibit B1, the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, was marked.

IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT:

9. The Trial Court, on consideration of the evidence, partly decreed the suit, directing defendant No.1 to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of 735.59 sq. yards out of the suit property, excluding 564.41 sq. yards already conveyed to defendant No.2.

10. Aggrieved thereby, defendant No.1 preferred this appeal.

V. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

A) On behalf of the Appellant/Defendant No.1

11. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the decree for partial specific performance was legally unsustainable; that Ex.A1 was insufficiently stamped; that defendant No.1, in his