POLEPALLE SUBRAMANYAM CHETTY Vs. GUNDAMREDDY PEDDAKKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17-4-1989 passed in A.S. No. 92 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madanapalle under which he dismissed the appeal challenging the judgment dated 9-8-1979 rendered in O.S. No. 1610 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Munsiff, Madanapalle.

(2.) The facts germane to the case may be stated briefly as follows :The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 6-5-1972 executed by the defendant on behalf of herself and on behalf of Amavasya Rami Reddy, who is her son-in-law in favour of the first plaintiff in respect of the land described in the plaint schedule. According to the plantiff, the defendant represented to him that the plaint schedule property belongs to herself and her son-in-law and accordingly agreed to sell the said property on her behalf and as agent of her son-in-law for Rs. 3,500.00. She received a sum of Rs. 200.00 as advance and agreed to receive the balance of sale consideration within four months from 6-5-1972 and to execute a registered sale deed. An agreement to this effect was executed by her on 6-5-1972 on her behalf and on behalf of her son-in-law. The first plaintiff has been demanding the defendant and her son-in-law to execute a registered sale deed but they were postponing on some pretext or the other. The first plaintiff issued a registered notice on 19-7-1993 but there was no reply from the defendant and there was no compliance of the terms of the agreement. Amavasya Rami Reddy in fact denied the agreement itself.

(3.) It is averred that the plaintiff has been and was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. As the said Rami Reddy denied the execution of the agreement, the defendant is liable to perform her part of contract with regard to her half share in the suit properties. The plaintiff also claimed Rs. 1,000.00 towards damages. It appears during the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died and plaintiffs 2 to 4 have been brought on record as legal representatives and now they claim specific performance of the contract.