VEERAMAREDDY NAGABHUSHANA RAO Vs. JYOTHULA VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful Defendant questioning the judgment and decree dated 16-4-2004 passed in OS No. 35 of 1997 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District, whereby and whereunder the trial Court inter alia decreed the suit directing the Defendant-Appellant herein to execute the sale deed. Cross appeal is also filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent herein assailing the judgment of the trial Court to the extent of awarding interest @ 18% per annum from 13-2-1993 till the date of deposit on the sale consideration. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

(2.) The Plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 13-2-1993 executed by the Defendant in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property and for other reliefs. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the suit schedule property belongs to the Defendant and the Defendant and his family members are known to him from some time. That the Defendant purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 20-4-1967 from Veeramreddy Kondayya and others and that it is his self-acquired property. The Defendant along with the suit schedule property also purchased some other extents of land.

(3.) It is stated that the Defendant offered to sell the suit schedule property to the Plaintiff at the rate of 2,00,000/- per acre and pursuant to the offer, the Plaintiff also agreed to purchase the same at the said rate and after both parties, agreed, the Defendant executed the agreement of sale on 13-2-1993 in favour of the Plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit schedule property. At the time of execution of the said agreement of sale, the Defendant received an amount of 15,000/-from the Plaintiff as advance from out of the total sale consideration. At the time of execution of the sale agreement, the Defendant represented that he would execute the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration within one year from the date of agreement of sale. The Defendant also stated to have assured that he would show his title deeds and other documents relating to the suit schedule property to the Plaintiff and satisfy the Plaintiff about his marketable title to the suit schedule property and his right to sell the same. That after the execution of the said agreement of sale, the Plaintiff has always been demanding the Defendant to produce his title deeds and other documents to show his unimpeachable title to the suit schedule property and complete the transaction. That the Plaintiff informed the Defendant several times that the balance sale consideration is ready and that the Plaintiff is also ready to complete the transaction, but the Defendant went on representing that the documents are not yet received and, therefore he required some more time for completion of the transaction. The Defendant also represented to the Plaintiff that he himself would intimate him after the documents are received and that he would execute and register the sale deed after taking all the necessary documents, but the Defendant failed to produce the documents and has not completed the transaction even though the Plaintiff periodically requested him to receive the money and complete the transaction. It is stated that under those circumstances, the Plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice dated 23-12-1996 through his advocate to the Defendant calling upon him to produce all his title deeds and other relevant documents showing his unimpeachable and marketable title to the suit schedule property and to execute sale deed on the requisite stamp paper in favour of the Plaintiff and deliver the suit schedule property to him after receiving the balance sale consideration. The Defendant received the said notice on 24-12-1996. The Defendant issued a reply notice on 17-1-1997 through his advocate stating that he requires a photostat copy of the sale agreement, pursuant thereto the Plaintiff's advocate served a photo copy of the sale agreement to the Defendant, but there was no reply from the Defendant thereafter. That the Defendant except asking for a copy of the sale agreement dated 13-2-1993, did not deny any of the averments made by the Plaintiff in the legal notice issued by him.