Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 25513
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
P.SREE SUDHA, J
M.JANGA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
MOHD FIAZ KHAN KHALIDI AND 3 ORS – Respondent
AS/842/2010
The court affirmed that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which can be inferred from the overall conduct rather than strict adherence to specific pleadings.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Suit for specific performance - Plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 10.01.2004 - Trial Court decreed the suit, finding that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract - Appellant contended that the plaintiff did not plead readiness and willingness and that he was not entitled to specific performance as he was not the bona fide purchaser - Court found that the transactions between defendants were collusive and aimed to defeat the plaintiff's rights - The trial court's findings were upheld as there was no illegality or irregularity in its judgment. (Paras 1-37)
(B) Readiness and Willingness - The court emphasized that the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract must be assessed in light of the entire conduct of the parties, not merely through specific phrases in the pleadings. (Paras 19-20)
(C) Collusion and Sham Transactions - The court noted that the agreements executed by the defendants were sham and collusive, aimed at defeating the plaintiff's rights under the original agreement. (Paras 8, 34)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase land from defendant No.1, paying substantial amounts as advance. The defendants subsequently executed agreements among themselves to sell the same property to others at a significantly lower price, leading to the plaintiff's suit for specific performance.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found that the plaintiff had established his case for specific performance, and the agreements among the defendants were collusive and lacked bona fides.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and whether the agreements executed by the defendants were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff's overall conduct demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the collusive nature of the defendants' transactions warranted the decree of specific performance.
Result: Appeal dismissed, confirming the trial court's judgment.
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 08.04.2010 in O.S.No.2 of 2006, passed by the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act – cum – V-Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.
2. The suit vide O.S.No.2 of 2006 was filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant No.4 and respondents No.2 to 4/defendants No.1 to 3 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10.01.2004. Respondent No.1/plaintiff was examined himself as P.W.1 and also got examined P.W.2 on his behalf and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on his behalf. D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of defendants in the suit and marked Exs.B1 to B29 on their behalf. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and arguments of both sides, decreed the suit with costs with a direction to respondent No.2/defendant No.1 to execute the registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 within one month from the date of the Judgment. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, defendant No.4 therein preferred the present appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1 died and his legal heirs were brought on record as respondents No.5 to 7.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is contrary to law, evidence on record and facts of the case. Respondent No.1/Plaintiff did not plead that he is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and he was not ready to perform his part of contract, as such he is not entitled to seek the relief of specific performance of contract. The trial court failed to see that the appellant is the bona fide purchaser for valuable sale consideration much prior to the filing of the suit and the name of the appellant is recorded in the revenue records. The trial court did not frame any issue with regard to validity of the registered sale deed dated 09.11.2005 executed in favour of the appellant and without the said issue, finding was recorded by the trial Court that the document bearing No.4265/2005 dated 09.11.2005 is inoperative, thus the trial court committed material illegality and irregularity in allowing the suit. The trial court did not appreciate the documents submitted by the appellant and failed to see that respondent No.4/defendant No.3 is the bona fide purchaser under agreement of sale cum GPA from respondent No.3/defendant No.2. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside by allowing the present appeal with exemplary costs.
4. Respondents No.2 to 5 did not contest the present appeal. The respondent No.1 who is the plaintiff in the main suit contended that the trial court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence submitted by both the parties and after considering the law of the land, rightly decreed the suit. There is no material illegality or irregularity in the findings of trial court. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. Parties herein are referred as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
6. Plaintiff instituted the suit vide O.S.No.2 of 2006, for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10.01.2004. It is averred in the plaint that defendant No.1 is the pattadar and possessor of the land in Sy.no.75, admeasuring Acs.26-11 gts, situated at Venkatapur Village, Kohir mandal of Medak District. When defendant No.1 offered to sell the suit land, plaintiff accepted to purchase the same for Rs.52,000/- per acre. An oral agreement was took place in between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 on 26.08.2003 and on that day itself plaintiff paid an advance amount of Rs.50,000/- to defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 has also issued a receipt. Subsequently, on 06.09.2003, plaintiff paid a further amount of Rs.50,000/- under a receipt. Later, on 10.01.2004 again plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and on the same day an agreement of sale was entered into in between the plaintiff and
