RUDRAM BUILDERS Vs. MIR ASHARAFUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 549 of 1993 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, is the Appellant. The suit was filed for specific performance of contract of sale dated 07.10.1987.

(2.) The case of the Plaintiff is that the 1st Defendant is the father of Defendant Nos. 2 to 5. The 1st Defendant is the owner of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.08.05 guntas in S. Nos. 1120/1 and 1120/2, situated at Medchal village, Medchal Talug/Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having inherited the same from his ancestors. The revenue records show the name of the 1st Defendant as Pattedar of the property. The Plaintiff submits that the 1st Defendant, on 05.02.1987, offered to sell Ac. 13.05 guntas of agricultural land in S. Nos. 1120/1, 1120/2, 1113 and 1114/1, situated at Medchal village at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per acre. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 were also requested to join in execution of the documents. However, it was subsequently found that there is a litigation in respect of the land in S. Nos. 1113 and 1114/1. Therefore, the Plaintiff had given up the land covered by the said survey numbers and an agreement of sale was executed on 07.10.1989 in respect of the land bearing S. Nos. 1120/1 and 1120/2, totally admeasuring Ac.08.05 guntas. The rate agreed to was Rs. 75,000/- per acre and the Defendants collected a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-by way of advance and earnest money. The Plaintiff filed the agreement of sale dated 07.10.1987 in original. The Defendants executed a sale deed in respect of Ac.03.00 guntas of land on 16.10.1937 in part performance of the agreement of sale. The Defendants promised to execute the sale deed for the remaining property at a subsequent date. As per the agreement of sale the Defendants were to produce the registered release deed from Katruka Shareholders, who are the sisters of the 1st Defendant releasing their undivided share in the property in favour of the Plaintiff, clearance certificate from Land Mortgage Bank in respect of the loan obtained by the Defendants mortgaging the schedule land and also clearance of land revenue dues. However, in spite of repeated requests the Defendants did not comply with their part of the obligation. But, the Plaintiff made further payments of sale consideration totaling to Rs. 3,64,341/- leaving a balance of Rs. 10,660/-. On 22.05.1988, the 3rd Defendant sent an agreement and that the agreement has been cancelled. To the said notice the Plaintiff got a reply sent on 28.05.1988. On 01.08.1989, Smt. Qamarunnisa Begum, the sister of the 1st Defendant, got a notice issued addressed to the 1st Defendant as well as to the Plaintiff claiming right over the property. On 18.03.1992, the 3rd Defendant, on behalf of the Defendants, sent a letter confirming and ratifying the agreement dated 07.10.1987 and also receipt of the amounts from the Plaintiff towards sale consideration. On the said date, Defendants collected a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The Defendants were called upon even at that stage to produce clearance which they failed to do so. The Plaintiff has been patiently waiting for the Defendants to get clearance and register the sale deed in respect of Ac.05.05 guntas of land as per the agreement of sale dated 07.10.1987. The Plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation by paying the agreed sale consideration and getting the document registered. However, the matter was postponed on account of the Defendants only.

(3.) The 1st Defendant died and the legal representatives were brought on record. The 3rd Defendant filed written statement admitting the relationship with the other Defendants and the ownership of the schedule properties. The fact that an extent of Ac. 13.05 guntas of land was agreed to be sold by the 1st Defendant and execution of agreement on 05.02.1987 and on 07.10.1987 are admitted. The execution of registered sale deed for an extent of Ac.03.00 guntas on 16.10.1987 is admitted. As per the agreement dated 07.10.1987, a registered lease deed has to be given to the Plaintiff from Katruka shareholders and one Qamarunnisa Begum, the sister of the 1st Defendant, issued a notice claiming share in the properties. As the Plaintiff has approached the 1st Defendant and as the matter is settled with the other sharers, the sale deed for Ac.03.00 guntas was registered for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The Plaintiff promised to pay this balance of sale consideration and subsequently paid only a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and could not pay the remaining amount. The Plaintiff never insisted for production of documents referred in the agreement dated 07.10.1987 after registering Ac.03.00 guntas of land in favour of the Plaintiff, whenever came forward to fulfill the terms and conditions of agreement of sale, more particularly clause Nos. 3 and 4. On repeated requests made to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 40,000/-to the Defendants which is the above mentioned amount on the following dates i.e. an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 09.02.1988 and Rs. 10,000/- on 06.04.1988. The amount which has been paid on 06.04.1988 was the last payment by the Plaintiff and after that the Plaintiff has not paid any amount to the Defendants and the same has been admitted by the Plaintiff in the reply notice dated 28.05.1988. The Plaintiff, in all, has paid an amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- to the Defendants i.e. Rs. 2,50,000/- paid on the date of agreement of sale and Rs. 40,000/- paid on four various dates which is already mentioned above. The receipts filed by the Plaintiff for the remaining amount are false and the signatures on the said receipts are forged by the Plaintiff. The Defendants have not received any amount from the Plaintiff except the above mentioned amount i.e. in total Rs. 2,90,000/-. The Plaintiff with a mala fide intention in order to grab the suit land created the forgery receipts for which the Defendants are taking legal steps against the Plaintiff regarding forgery of signatures under civil and criminal law. The Defendants, several times, requested the Plaintiff to come forward and fulfill the terms and conditions of the agreement, but the Plaintiff didn't come forward, as such, after expiry of the stipulated time period of agreement of sale, the Defendants have got issued a legal notice to the Plaintiff on 22.05.1989 cancelling the agreement of sale. As such, the allegation made by the Plaintiff that he paid further payments of sale consideration of Rs. 3,64,341/- leaving a balance of Rs. 10,660/- is absolutely false and hence denied. It is true that to a reply given by the Plaintiff to the notice dated 22.05.1989, Smt. Qamarrunissa Begum got issued a legal notice to the Plaintiff and to the 1st Defendant claiming the right over the property. It is absolutely false to say that the 3rd Defendant has collected a sum of Rs. 5000/- from the Plaintiff. The allegation of the Plaintiff that the Defendants were called upon even at that alleged stage to produce the clearance is also absolutely false. The agreement of sale is cancelled on account of the Plaintiff's attitude in not complying with the terms and conditions only, but not on account of the Defendants as alleged by the Plaintiff.