THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.324 OF 2019

JUDGMENT:

This is an appeal filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 27.12.2018 passed in O.S.No.110 of 2010 by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short “the trial Court”).

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant before the trial Court. 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 plaintiff is initially in the suit schedule property belonging to the defendant. It was a new flat in which she got inducted as a tenant and that the window shutters were not fixed and there was seepage of water into the flat and that the defendant could not undertake the repair and thus, the plaintiff herself has got the repairs done. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant was planning to perform the marriage of her two daughters and she wanted to sell the flat due to financial necessity. The plaintiff has entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant on 29.04.2006 for the sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards car parking, thus, the total sale consideration was Rs.12,00,000/- and that the said agreement was executed on a white paper signed by both of them. The plaintiff paid advance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- on the said day and subsequently, has paid amount on different dates coming to a total of Rs.7,65,000/- towards advance sale consideration. That the defendant has asked the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration after three to four months and that at the time of marriage of defendant’s first daughter she paid some amounts and at the time of marriage of second daughter, she paid Rs.4,65,000/- on 23.01.2007 and another Rs.1,00,000/- on 08.02.2007. After the marriages were performed, the defendant has issued a legal notice on 01.01.2008 calling upon the plaintiff to vacate the suit schedule property and that she is terminating the agreement of sale alleging that the plaintiff failed to perform her part of contract. It is averred by the plaintiff that the defendant failed to execute the sale deed in her favour, thus, has filed the present suit.

4. The defendant has filed written statement admitting the agreement of sale dated 29.04.2006 and that there was another agreement of sale entered on 25.10.2006 with a revised sale consideration of Rs.12,20,000/- and the defendant has admitted the payment of Rs.7,65,000/- by the plaintiff towards advance sale consideration by February, 2007, but contended that there is a short fall of Rs.4,55,000/- towards balance sale consideration. It is contended by the defendant that the plaintiff was supposed to pay the entire amount within four months from 29.04.2006 initially and after the second agreement of sale was entered it was agreed upon that the plaintiff had to pay the entire sale consideration by 26.02.2007 and that the defendant was supposed to execute the sale deed on receiving the entire balance sale consideration and that the said date was stipulated as a condition at Clause No.2 and Clause No.8, that the balance sale consideration shall be paid by 26.02.2007 and sale deed should be executed by that date, thus, the plaintiff failed to perform her part of contract as she was not ready and willing to perform her part of contract. It is contended by the defendant that the plaintiff has paid only Rs.7,65,000/- and has never expressed her willingness to pay the remaining balance sale consideration and therefore, having waited till 01.01.2008, she got issued a legal notice to the plaintiff asking her to vacate the suit schedule premises and that she is terminating the agreement of sale to which the plaintiff has issued a reply notice dated 19.01.2008 but has failed to vacate the suit schedule premises. It