VOLETI RANGAIAH Vs. ADAPA SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal suit is directed against the judgment dated 27-4-1992 in O.S. No. 66 of 1989 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Sathupalli under which the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of the contract in respect of the plaint schedule property has been dismissed.

(2.) The relevant facts of this appeal may be stated briefly as follows :The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit and the respondents are the defendants. The parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff filed the instant suit for the specific performance of contract of sale in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property against the defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that the 2nd defendant is the mother and the third defendant is the wife and the fourth and fifth defendants are the sons of the first defendant. The first defendant on his behalf and on behalf of his sons, namely, 4th and 5th defendants, who were minors at the relevant time and the 2nd and 3rd defendants agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 75,000.00 on 19-5-1983. It is stated that the plaintiff was already in possession of the said house as a tenant. On the date of agreement, an amount of Rs. 10,000.00 was paid. A further sum of Rs. 20,000.00 was paid on 20-6-1983 to the vendors besides the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 500.00 on 26-6-1983 to Gottuparthy Satyanarayana upon the instructions of the first defendant.

(3.) On 25-8-1983 as contemplated under the agreement, the plaintiff was ready with the balance amount of Rs. 43,500.00 and a further amount of Rs. 8,000.00 for meeting the expenses of stamp duty and registration and he went with the said amount to the Sub-Registrar's office at Sathupalli. But, the defendants failed to go to Sub-Register's Office. It is stated that the plaintiff kept the said amount in the State Bank of Hyderabad by depositing it to the Account No. 1688 standing in the name of his son. Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued a notice on 26-8-1983 showing his readiness with the remaining purchased amount and asking the defendants to go for registration. The first defendants gave a reply which did not disclose the presence of the 2nd and 3rd defendants for registration. The plaintiff got issued a rejoinder to that reply. It is stated that the first defendant got issued a notice dated 24-9-1983 treating the plaintiff as tenant and asking him to vacate the premises. It is stated that the first defendant also filed O.S. No. 24 of 1994 for eviction. Thus, it is clear that the defendants had no intention to perform their part of the contract and hence the suit.