Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2885-2887 of 2005

S. Kesari Hanuman Goud

… Appellant

Versus

Anjum Jehan & Ors.

… Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2888 & 4459 of 2005

J U D G M E N T

Dr.B.S.Chauhan, J.

Civil Appeal Nos. 2885-2887 of 2005

1.

These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and

order dated 10.6.2003 by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.C.C.A. Nos.34 and 33 of 1991 and

C.C.C.A.No. 92 of 1993, by way of which the appeals filed by the

respondents against the common judgment and decree dated

22.3.1991, in O.S. No.30 of 1984 and O.S. No.135 of 1984, passed by

Page 2

JUDGMENT

the court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,

have been partly allowed, by modifying the said judgment and order

of the trial court.

2.

Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that:

A.

The appellant/plaintiff was carrying on business prior to

1.1.1978 in the appurtenant land as a tenant, and had made an offer to

purchase the said premises, alongwith two other premises belonging

to the landlady Ms. Anjum Jehan - respondent No.1/defendant No.1

(hereinafter referred to as `Res.No.1’).

B.

The parties entered into an agreement dated 15.10.1977, for the

sale of land admeasuring 1200 square yards situated at Musheerabad,

Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, for a total consideration of Rs.1,70,070/-.

Out of which a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid as earnest money. The

said agreement to sell, provided that the sale deed was to be executed

within a period of six months from the date of agreement, or upon

intimation by the vendor, as she had to obtain permission from the

competent authority under Section 27 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act,

1976 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act 1976), the necessary income

tax clearances and the sub division permission from the municipal

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

corporation. The aforesaid suit land was also in the possession of the

landlady, and had partly been occupied by defendant no. 2/respondent

(Narsoji).

C.

After the execution of the said agreement to sell, the

appellant/plaintiff paid non-agricultural assessment tax. A legal

notice dated 18.6.1979 was received by the appellant from Res. No.1

Ms. Anjum Jehan, stating that she had obtained requisite permission

from the statutory authorities under the Act 1976, from the income tax

authorities, and also from the sub-divisional authorities.

D.

The appellant/plaintiff asked Res. No.1 vide letter dated

2.7.1979, to send the copies of the aforesaid permissions, as well as a

copy of the General Power of Attorney (hereinafter referred to as the

`GPA’), that had been executed by her.

E.

Instead of executing the sale-deed in favour of the

appellant/plaintiff, Res. No.1 tried to sell the suit property to other

persons. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff got a public notice

published in local newspapers on 29.4.1980 and 30.4.1980, in respect

of the suit property, stating that an agreement to sell had been

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

executed between the parties as regards the said land, and that

therefore, no other person must purchase the same.

F.

Despite the said notice, the GPA holder of Res. No.1 entered

into two different agreements to sell with respondent no. 2/defendant

no.3 (K.S.R.Murthy) on 29/30.4.1980, for open land admeasuring 510

square yards.

G.

The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit bearing O.S. No. 30 of 1984

on 23.6.1983 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated

15.10.1977, directing the Res. No.1 to execute a registered sale deed

in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, and ignoring the agreement to sell

in favour of respondent/defendant nos.3, 6 and 7.

H.

Respondent no.3/Defendant No. 7 (K.Y. Rajaiah) filed Original

Suit No. 135 of