DHARA MARY PUSHPALATHA Vs. PUVVADA NAGESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.102 of 1983 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ongole had preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by the decree passed in her favour but imposing a condition of payment of interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 21-8-1980.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the appellant/plaintiff filed O.S.No.102 of 1983 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ongole for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 7-6-1980 executed by the respondent/defendant agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property at the rate of Rs. 650.00 per gadi. The recitals in the said agreement of sale were that Rs.1,000.00 was paid on the same day, the balance of sale consideration was payable at the time of execution of the registered sale deed, and if the balance of sale consideration is not paid within one month, interest at the rate of 24% is payable on the balance of sale consideration till execution of the sale deed and amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid on 21-8-1980 relating to which an endorsement was made. It is the further case of the appellant/plaintiff that plaintiff along with her husband had demanded the respondent-defendant to receive the balance of sale consideration and execute a registered sale deed. But, he evaded the same and hence there was exchange of notices between the parties. The trial court had recorded the evidence of P.W.1, the plaintiff and the husband of the plaintiff as P.W.2 and the evidence of the defendant as D.W.I and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. As can be seen from the findings recorded by the trial Court, mainly basing on the admissions made by the respondent/defendant, a conditional decree was passed directing the payment of balance amount of Rs. 15,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 21-8-1980 onwards till the date of payment to the respondent- defendant.

(3.) In view of the short question involved in the present appeal, it is not necessary to go into the details of evidence which had been recorded by the trial Court. It is suffice to state that a conditional decree was passed and the same was not complied with.