ASHWATTHAMMA Vs. RAMAKKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The parties are referred to by their rank before the Trial Court. It was the Plaintiff's case that the suit property originally belonged to Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 is the husband of Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of 5,000/-to the Plaintiff and had received the entire sale consideration as on 30.7.1980 and the sale deed was executed on a stamp paper of 5001/-. There was an attesting witness in respect of the sale transaction. It is contended that since the villagers of Garagadoddi were agitating against acquisition of some portion of the suit property and their petitions in this regard were pending before the competent authorities, they were opposed to registration of the sale transaction. The land was also the subject-matter of acquisition proceedings and therefore, the sale deed could not be registered. However, the Plaintiff had been put in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and she was cultivating the same. In this regard, the Plaintiff drew attention to a writ petition which was filed through the Defendant's mother before this Court in its writ jurisdiction and the same having been allowed and acquisition proceedings having been quashed, the Plaintiff claimed that he has performed his part of the contract in having paid the entire sale consideration and she was ready and willing to have the document of sale executed in her favour. The first Defendant inspite of oral demands had failed to execute and register the sale deed. However, the sale deed was sought to be treated as an agreement of sale and a legal notice was issued calling upon the Defendant to execute the sale deed. The Defendant having replied denying the execution of the sale deed, a suit was filed.

(3.) Whether the suit is not in time?