THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT No.53 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada)

This is an appeal filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 02.12.2009, passed in O.S.No.87 of 2005 by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short “the trial Court”).

2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court and the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the defendants offered to sell their property to an extent of Ac.14-00 guntas and that the plaintiff has agreed to purchase the same for a total sale consideration of Rs.91,00,000/-, out of which he has paid Rs.22 Lakhs i.e. Rs.8 Lakhs was paid by cash and Rs.14 Lakhs through cheque bearing No.702002, dated 11.12.2003 drawn on SBI, ECIL Branch, Hyderabad and that the balance sale consideration of Rs.69 lakhs was agreed to be paid at the time of registration and an agreement of sale was drafted to that effect. It is his case that the terms of agreement of sale were that within three months i.e. by 12.03.2004, the contract should be concluded for which the plaintiff shall arrange for balance sale consideration and the defendants shall get the original documents and link documents and also shall make the survey conducted over the land and give out the correct measurements but the defendants have failed to do their part of contract i.e. they failed to get the land surveyed and measured and he also failed to produce the ORC on time and thus, he got issued a notice on 10.03.2004 expressing his readiness and willingness and asking the defendants to produce necessary documents and to survey the land without any further delay. The defendants have received the notice and given a reply making all false allegations and that they would like to execute the sale deed without the land being surveyed and without any documents and then pursuant to the same, the plaintiff has again sent a reply requesting them to make the survey of the land and that the defendants have made an application for surveying the land and the surveyor has issued a notice dated 13.07.2004 to the plaintiff and defendants but the defendants failed to be present at the time of survey. The plaintiff has again given an application dated 11.08.2004 to the Mandal Revenue Officer requesting him to get the survey done and that subsequent to said notice, the defendants have filed a caveat before the Court on 15.03.2004 and that the defendants pointed out that the time is the essence of contract i.e. within three months the contract should be executed but in fact the plaintiff has been ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and it is the defendants who did not cooperate. It is his further case that the defendants got a clearance of survey No.293 only on 06.05.2004 issued by the RDO under Section 8 read with Section 10 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act and as per the said order, the defendants got the ORC in the month of May, 2004 and later on the defendants have handed over that copy of the ORC to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff states that the defendants have wantonly delayed the process and that even after obtaining the ORC they failed to come forward for executing the sale deed. It is his further case that though he was ready and willing at all times to get the sale deed executed, the defendants failed to perform their part of contract and therefore, getting vexed with the attitude of the defendants, he filed the suit.

4. The defendants have filed written statement denying the averments of plaint. They admitted the execution of agreement of sale and they contended that the time is the essence of contract and that it was clearly mentioned in the agreement o