JUDGMENT: -

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellants/defendants challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 20.04.2005, in O.S. No.25 of 2002 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 04.09.2000 directing the defendants to execute registered sale deed of the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff after receiving balance sale consideration, failing which requesting the Court to execute the sale deed on behalf of defendants.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.25 of 2002, are as under:

The defendants sold away the schedule property, for their family necessity and for acquiring some other properties, to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.13,00,005/- at the rate of Rs.12,381/- for cent and executed a sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff on 04.09.2000 by receiving an advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards part payment of the sale consideration and acknowledged the same in the said agreement.

ii) As per the said sale agreement the remaining sale consideration is to be paid at the time of registration and the said registration is to be done on or before 31.01.2001 at the expenses of the plaintiff and the defendants have to get ready for the said registration with all necessary documents such as original title deeds, Income Tax clearance, Encumbrance certificate etc. Even though the stipulated time has been coming nearer, the defendants have been postponing to get ready for the registration along with the said certificates. While so, the defendants requested the plaintiff to pay them a further advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards part payment of the said sale consideration and the plaintiff paid the said amount on 18.01.2001 and the same was endorsed by the defendants on the said sale agreement. In spite of repeated requests made by the plaintiff, the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed after receiving balance of sale consideration. As per the endorsement dated 18.01.2001 there is no time limitation for execution of the sale deed, but the plaintiff has to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the balance sale consideration, which is an unnecessary loss to the plaintiff and it is no loss to the defendants. So, the defendants are postponing the registration in spite of plaintiff's readiness and willingness to pay balance sale consideration.

iii) The defendants sent a caveat petition with all false allegations, with a malafide intention for wrongful gain, suppressing the terms and conditions of the sale agreement. Thereupon, the plaintiff sent a telegraphic notice to the defendants on 10.03.2002 and also made a publication on 11.03.2002. Later on 13.03.2002 the plaintiff got issued a lawyer's notice demanding the defendants to get ready for registration of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration. The defendants did not receive the notice, but they got issued a lawyer's notice dated 11.03.2002 with all false allegations to which the plaintiff got issued a reply lawyer's notice dated 18.03.2002 demanding the defendants to get ready for registration. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed, but the defendants failed to execute the same iv) Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the sale agreement directing the defendants to execute the sale deed, failing which she requests the court to execute the sale deed on behalf of the defendants. Under any circumstances if the court comes to the conclusion that the specific performance cannot be granted, the plaintiff claimed alterna