THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL Nos.4 and 18 of 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT:

These appeals are filed against the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.9 of 2003, dated 05.10.2020, passed by the learned X-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Initially, respondents No.1 to 5, who are the plaintiffs in the suit, have filed a suit for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale, dated 28-02-1998, which is alleged to have been executed by the appellant/defendant no.1 in favour of plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and also to direct appellant/defendant No.1 to acknowledge the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and for consequential injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence of both sides, decreed the suit with costs and also directed the defendant No.1 therein to execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property within two months from the date of the Judgment. Challenging the said Judgment defendant No.1 therein preferred C.C.C.A.No.18 of 2021 and defendant No.2 therein preferred C.C.C.A.No.4 of 2021.

3. Parties herein are hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

4. The plaint schedule property is a house bearing D.No.8-3- 976/92 with plinth area of 1490 square feet, Plot No.92 admeasuring an extent of 350 square yards situated at Shalivahana Nagar, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the schedule property"). The averment in the plaint is that defendant No.1 had proposed to sell the plaint schedule property in the month of January, 1998 and, on 19-02-1998, plaintiffs have obtained encumbrance certificate and got it confirmed that the property was not subjected to encumbrances.

5. It was alleged that on 20-02-1998 an oral agreement of sale was concluded between the plaintiffs and defendants for a total sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- was paid on the same day, as part sale consideration and a stamped receipt was executed by defendant No.1 to that effect.

It was agreed that the final terms and conditions of the contract will be reduced into a written agreement of sale on or before 28-02-1998. The defendant No.1 promised to deliver the original title deeds, pertaining to the suit schedule property, after getting the clearance from the Income Tax Department under the pretext that the Annual Assessment for the years 1996-1998 was not cleared by the Income Tax Department.

6. It was further alleged that on 28-02-1998 a written agreement of sale was entered into between plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and defendant No.1 enumerating the terms and conditions and defendant No.1 agreed to receive the balance of sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-, after obtaining Income Tax clearance and expressed his willingness to execute the registered sale deed on or before 28-02-1999. As per clause 3 of the agreement of sale, dated 28-02-1998, the defendant No.1 agreed to deliver the vacant and physical possession of the schedule property and the balance sale consideration has to be paid as soon as the vendor obtains the tax clearance and offers his readiness to register the property.

7. It is alleged in the plaint that plaintiffs secured the balance of sale consideration and requested the defendant No.1 to complete the sale transaction by 31-03-1998 as the plaintiff No.5 has to set up his office cum residence and a portion of the property was delivered. Subsequently, Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was entered on 03-08-1998, wherein it was alleged that defendant No.1 had stated that he could not get Income Tax clearance and agreed to pay 18% interest on the advance amount. As the time fixed in the agreement was expired, the defendant No.1 addressed a letter on 28-02-1999 enhancing the amount of sal