MALANBEE Vs. SYED AMJED HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff is appellant. Her suit being O.S.No.1037 of 1979 for specific performance having been dismissed by the Court of II Additional Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, on 31.08.1982, she filed instant appeal about three decades ago. During the pendency, sole respondent (sole defendant) died. THE appellant also died. THEir legal representatives are now fighting the case in respect of a residential cum commercial premises situated in high value business area of Hyderabad known as Gunfoundry. In view of the long pendency, this Court suggested the parties to explore the possibilities of settlement. THE counsel made attempts but reciprocal offers were perceived to be 'too high'. THE counsel, therefore, discharged their duty of presenting the case in this long pending appeal. With these brief remarks, to begin with; the plaintiff's case and the defendant's case - referring to them as such; is noticed below.

(2.) MALANBEE is owner of suit schedule property. The defendant was Deputy Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh. She was also having a dairy farm in Tandoor, looked after by her son Mohd.Usman. For her family needs, she borrowed Rs. 20,000/- from the defendant. He agreed on condition of plaintiff executing registered sale deed as collateral security. He also agreed to reconvey the property. To give effect to the transaction, plaintiff executed registered sale deed on 17.08.1963 being document No.2370 of 1963. The defendant then executed deed of reconveyance on 18.08.1963 agreeing to resell the suit schedule property within five years for a consideration of Rs. 31,000/-. On her request, on 14.08.1971 the defendant executed an endorsement on reconveyance deed extending the time for a further period of five years from 18.08.1971 to 17.08.1976. Both the parties also agreed to keep the said endorsement alive for a further period of three months but sale consideration was mutually revised upward to Rs. 40,000/-. These facts are not disputed by the defendant.

(3.) THE trial Court framed five substantial issues, which are as follows.