K VENKAT REDDY Vs. G LAKSHMI KANTHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff. The appellant filed OS.No.774/1996 in the Court of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Courts. Hyderabad, for specific performance of the purported agreement of sale dated 6-6-1983. According to the appellant, the respondent is the owner of vacant land admeasuring about 600 square yards adjoining the house bearing No.l6-2-146/A/l, Judges Colony. New Malakpet, Hyderabad. She offered to sell the same quoting the rate at Rs.600- per square yard. The appellant offered to purchase it at the rate quoted by the respondent and accordingly paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards advance/ earnest money, through cheque dt. 6-6-1983. Having received the same, the respondent issued receipt dated 6-6-1983. In that receipt, apart from acknowledging receipt of the amount of Rs.10,000/-, the respondent had also stipulated the rate to be paid i.e., Rs.600/- per square yard and that the area to be sold would be after excluding the portion acquired for widening of the road. Thereafter, the appellant approached the respondent number of times offering to pay the balance of consideration and requested her to execute the sale deed. On one pretext or the other the respondent was avoiding to execute the same. Ultimately, the appellant got issued advocate's notice dated 19-8-1985 calling upon the respondent to receive the balance of consideration and execute the sale deed within 3 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The respondent got issued a reply dated 7-9-1985 through her advocate wherein it was stated that the amount of Rs.10,000/- received by her was only as a token pending execution of agreement of sale incorporating various terms, such as, area to be sold, schedule of payments, the consequences of any default, etc, that with a view to pave the way for execution of the sale, she applied to the ULC authorities to accord permission and since the same was not accorded, it was not possible for her to execute the agreement of sale and as such the question of execution of sale deed does not arise. In view of the same, the appellant filed the suit seeking a decree for specific performance ot the purported agreement or in the alternative decree for Rs.1,50,000/- towards damages together with a sum of Rs.10,000/- for refund of the earnest money with interest thereon.

(2.) The respondent filed her written statement, almost reiterating the contentions raised by her in the reply notice dated 7-9-1985. In addition to that, she has also stated that since there was no agreement of sale, the question of not performing her part of contract does not arise. She has also raised a plea as to limitation as well as insufficiency of Court fees. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(3.) On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court rejected the relief of specific performance, and however, passed a decree for refund of Rs.10,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit. Thus arises the appeal.