THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT NO.149 OF 2017

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellants-plaintiffs aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 01.12.2016 passed in O.S.No.49 of 2005 by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The suit is filed for specific performance of Agreement of Sale for the balance area of 29,932 Sq yards which includes roads etc, out of original Ac.10.00 guntas of suit land agreed to be sold and to execute registered sale deed for the said area. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after referred to as arrayed in O.S.No.49 of 2005.

2. The plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 claim to be the legal heirs of late Smt. Laxmi. Plaintiff No.1 is the husband and plaintiff No.2 is the son of late Smt Laxmi. They entered into an agreement of sale with defendants 1 to 3 on 08.09.1986. The agreement pertained to the sale of land admeasuring Ac.10.00 guntas in S.Nos.72, 74, and 75 of Chengicherla Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, @ Rs. 55,000/- per acre, totalling to Rs.5,50,000/-. It is alleged that the defendants received Rs.78,000/- as an advance payment of sale consideration and put Smt. Laxmi in possession of the land. The plaintiffs contend that the defendant Nos.1 to 3 received the total balance consideration, including wood worth Rs.20,000/- used for construction of hospital, but they failed to execute the sale deed in the name of nominees of Smt. Laxmi for a portion of the land covered by the agreement of sale. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant Nos.1 to 3 executed a sale deed on 26.12.2003, in the name of Smt. Anasuya- nominee of late Smt Laxmi. The plaintiffs therefore sought to enforce the agreement of sale for the balance of the land that remains unsold.

3. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying all allegations made by the plaintiffs. He stated that defendant No.2 never signed the agreement of sale, and defendant No. 1 is the sole owner of the land in Survey No.74 of Chengicherla Village. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have no connection to the land agreed to be sold, and no part of the consideration was paid to them. Defendant No.1 claimed that the balance amount of Rs.4,72,000/- was to be paid within 15 months from the date of the agreement, but only Rs.3,65,000/- was paid, including the advance amount of Rs.78,000/-. The agreement holder expressed her inability to pay the balance sale consideration and requested defendant No.1 to confine the agreement to the extent of land in proportion to the sale consideration amount paid. Defendant No.1 executed and registered sale deeds in favor of nominees of Smt. Laxmi to the extent of land in proportion to the sale consideration of Rs.3,65,000/-. Defendant No.1 stated that he had already sold the entire extent of land belonging to him out of Survey No. 74 to third parties long back, and the property had changed several hands thereafter. The alleged layout is created and fabricated, and the suit is not maintainable.

4. Defendant No.1 questioned the plaintiffs' right to seek enforcement of the agreement of sale, as they have not stated when Smt. Laxmi died and their right to seek enforcement of the agreement. He further alleged that the agreement holder having committed default in payment of balance sale consideration and having confined the agreement to the extent of land in proportion to the sale consideration amount paid are not entitled to seek for specific performance. The suit schedule property is not available for conveyance as it was conveyed to various other persons long ago, the plaintiffs have nothing to do with the same and they have no title to the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the present suit. It is also alleged that the plaintiffs have not paid entire sale consideration but have paid only Rs.3,65,000/- and in view of the discrepancy, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance.

5. Defendants 4 to 23, who are the third pa