MOTURI SEETA RAMABRAHMAM Vs. BOBBA RAMA MOHANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. Suit, O.S. No. 95 of 1985 was filed by the sole plaintiff on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gudivada for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 5-1-1973 directing defendants 1 to 5 to execute registered sale deed and for possession of the suit schedule property.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties to this appeal would be referred to in accordance with their ranking in the suit.

(3.) The averments in the plaint, in brief, are set out as hereunder :- Late Bobba Krishna Murthy was the undivided father of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is the wife of Krishna Murthy and defendants 3 to 5 are their daughters. Krishna Murthy is the maternal uncle of the plaintiff. Krishna Murthy and his undivided father Ramachandrayya borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,390-00 from the plaintiff's wife and executed a pronote dated 16-8-1967 in her favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% p.a. They made a part payment of Rs. 25-00 on 12-8-1970 and endorsed the same on the back of the pronote. Ramachandrayya died in or about the year 1971. Subsequently Krishna Murthy also died in or about the year 1972. The plaint schedule property was the absolute property of Krishna Murthy. He purchased the same from one Vegunta Venkata Subba Rao under a registered sale deed dated 26-6-1978 for Rs. 15,000-00 but Krishna Murthy executed a pronote for the said sale consideration of Rs. 15,000-00 in favour of the vendor V. V. Subba Rao on the same date. After Krishna Murthy purchased the plaint schedule property, he installed a motor pump set in the well and obtained electricity connection. He constructed a thatched shed for the motor pumpset. For non-payment of the electricity charges the service connection was disconnected. Krishna Murthy took away the motor pump set etc., from the land. He was indebted to the Land Mortgage Bank, Gannavaram and also to Kollipara Venkata Seetharamayya. The Bank sold Ac. 7-00 of land of Krishna Murthy to satisfy its debt. Seetaramayya attached the schedule property subject to the first charge of V. V. Subba Rao and brought the same to sale in E.P. No. 77 of 1971 in O.S. No. 212 of 1979. When the plaintiff and his wife pressed Krishna Murthy for payment of the pronote debt, he as well as defendants 1 and 2 expressed that there is no possibility of their discharging the debt under the pronote and requested the plaintiff to purchase the schedule mentioned property in full satisfaction of the pronote debt as well as the first charge due to V. V. Subba Rao. They also requested the plaintiff to make a further payment of Rs. 5,000-00. In the first week of January, 1973 the plaintiff approached defendants 1 to 5 through mediators viz., Kommana Surya Prakash Rao, Moturi Sivaramabrahmam, Surapaneni Kutumbaya, Katragadda Kutumba Rao and V. V. Krishna Rao. The 5th defendant was a minor by then. Defendants 1 to 4 represented to the plaintiff that they are not in a position to discharge the debt covered by the pronote and that as already suggested by late Krishna Murthy, they requested the plaintiff to purchase the plaint schedule land for Rs. 34,000-00 and that the plaintiff could discharge the debt of his wife, undertake responsibility to discharge the debt due to V. V. Subba Rao and pay Rs. 5,000-00 in cash to them out of the sale consideration and obtain reconnection of the electricity to the bore-well. The plaintiff accepted the said proposal of defendants 1 to 5. The reconnection charges were estimated at Rs. 2,000-00. It was agreed that defendants 1 to 5 should execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for the suit schedule land as and when the plaintiff required them to do so. Defendants 1 to 5 represented that they would negotiate with Seetharamayya for settlement of the debt due to him. The terms were agreed upon orally and a concluded contract came into existence between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 on 5-1-1973. On 15-1-1973 the plaintiff completely discharged the debt due to his wife under the pronote by paying her Rs. 7,701-00 and obtained the discharged pronote as voucher. He also paid Rs. 5,000-00 in cash to defendants 1 to 4 and the 5th defendant represented by her mother as her guardian, in the presence of K. Surya Prakasa Rao and M. Sivaramabrahmam at Vissannapet. On that day, the 1st defendant delivered possession of the suit schedule land to the plaintiff and since then the plaintiff has been in possession of the plaint schedule property. Defendants 1 to 5 were not in a position to execute the sale deed, as agreed, for the suit schedule property till about the year 1981 as the attachment was subsisting. V. V. Subba Rao filed O.S. No. 294 of 1980 in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Vijayawada and obtained a preliminary decree on 31-7-1980 and also filed a petition for final decree. On 1-1-1984 the decree of Seetharamayya barred by time. When Subba Rao was pressing for discharge of his debt, the plaintiff requested his brother-in-law Katneni Ramakrishna to obtain transfer of the said decree from V. V. Subba Rao for Rs. 19,000-00. The decree was accordingly got transferred. The plaintiff obtained reconnection of electricity on 29-12-1975 after paying Rs. 2124-94. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Defendants 1 to 5 were not discharging their part of the contract. The plaintiff spent money for installing motor pumps, switch board, starter etc. for working out the bore and the electric motor. In 1976 the plaintiff reclaimed Ac/ 5-00 of the suit property which was by then lying waste and converted it into cultivable land. He also deepened the well by 10 feet in 1983. As the groundnut crop was not getting satisfactory income, the plaintiff left the land as grazing land for cattle. The plaintiff's rights became perfected by adverse possession. Because of rise in prices, defendants 1 to 5 postponed to execute the sale deed from January, 1984. On the other hand they executed an agreement of sale for the suit schedule land in favour of defendants 6 to 8. Defendants 6 to 8 knew about the plaintiff's sale agreement and plaintiff's possession of the suit schedule land as purchaser from defendants 1 to 5. The said agreement does not bind the plaintiff. On 30-4-1985 the 1st defendant informed the plaintiff that he and defendants 2 to 5 are prepared to execute the sale deed, as agreed upon, and asked the plaintiff to purchase stamp papers. Accordingly the plaintiff purchased the stamp papers at Gannavaram. The 1st defendant signed on the voucher book of the document writer and went to bring defendants 2 to 5 but he did not return. Since defendants 1 to 5 failed to execute the registered sale deed, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit.