N. RAJANI @ RANJINI Vs. KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant and the respondents are the defendants. The suit was one for passing a decree of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 11.06.1994 (Ex.P1). Suit having been decreed in part, the prayer for specific performance of contract as well as for permanent injunction having been rejected and the defendants having been only directed to pay Rs. 24,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization, feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this appeal.

(2.) For convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank in the Trial Court.

(3.) Sri M.S. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior advocate, appearing for the appellant contended that the agreed sale consideration amount having been paid to the defendants, the Trial Court has erred in denying the relief of specific performance of contract. Learned counsel submitted that the refusal can be inferred by the fact that the defendants did not appear in the Trial Court and, merely because there is no express refusal, the Trial Court is unjustified in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Mademsetty Satyanarayana Vs. G. Yelloji Rao and others, 1965 AIR(SC) 1405, Devendra Basappa Doddannavar Vs. Smt. Sonubai Tuljansa Kosandal and others, 1971 AIR(Mys) 217, Prakash Chandra Vs. Angadlal and others, 1979 AIR(SC) 1241 and Prakash Chandra Vs. Narayan, 2012 AIR(SC) 2826. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, interference in the matter is warranted.