A YELLAPPA SASTRI Vs. GUNDA SHANKARA LINGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.2.2000 in OS No.1710 of 1987 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein, the said suit filed by the appellant herein for specific performance of contract of sale dated 25.11.1986, was dismissed.

(2.) Arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent are heard. Perused the record.

(3.) The appellant herein filed suit for specific performance with the averments, which in brief are as follows: The plaint schedule house property bearing D.No.8-3-988/28, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad, belonged to the first respondent. He offered to sell and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.3,85,000/-. As per the terms agreed upon, the plaintiff had to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as advance and he has to pay further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- where upon possession be delivered and the balance sale consideration has to be paid at the time of execution of registration of the sale deed. The first defendant passed a receipt to that effect on 25.11.1986 having received Rs. 1,00,000/-. The first defendant promised to get the property released from mortgage in favour of 3rd defendant. In the second week of December 1986 the first defendant sought further time on the ground the tenant did not vacate. The first defendant collected Rs.97,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.12.1986 by way of endorsement on the reverse of the receipt dated 25.11.1986. Having received more than half of the sale price by 10.12.1986, first defendant delivered symbolic possession to the plaintiff. The ground floor was in possession of M/s Tresa German, tenant of first defendant. The tenant vacated the ground floor and the plaintiff took possession of the same in July 1987. The plaintiff permitted the first defendant's son to live in the upstairs portion till he secures a suitable accommodation. In spite of several demands, the first defendant did not respond and did not obtain income tax clearance certificate and failed to discharge mortgage debt, but in stead, made attempts to sell the suit property to others. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file suit for specific performance.