PALIKA SATYAVATHI Vs. SINGIREDDY RAMANA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the defendant challenges the decree and judgment of the Court of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada in O.S.No.l52 of 1982.

(2.) The respondent filed the suit for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 15-11-1977 or in the alternative for refund of an amount of Rs.11,000/- paid towards part of sale consideration together with damages of Rs.9,000/-. The respondent pleaded that the appellant approached him offering to sell the suit schedule property for an amount of Rs.l3,500/-and an agreement of sale dated 15-7-1978 was executed, and an amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid towards advance on the same day. According to the terms of the agreement, the balance consideration was to be paid and sale deed was to be executed on or before 15-2-1978. However the appellant refused to execute the sale deed but went on receiving the amounts of Rs.1,000.00, Rs.500/- etc., upto June 1979. The last payment was made on 15-6-1979 being Rs.4,000/-and as on that date Rs.11,000.00 stood paid. When the respondent offered to pay the balance of consideration and required the appellant to execute the sale deed, she did not come forward. Accordingly the respondent got issued notice dated 30-6-1981 calling upon the appellant to receive the balance of consideration and execute the sale deed. Since the said request was not complied with the suit is filed for the relief as referred to above.

(3.) The appellant filed a written statement admitting the factum of execution of agreement of sale as well as the receipt of the various amounts totalling to Rs.11,000.00. However, it was her case that she wanted to sell the property to meet the family expenses and to clear the debts, but the respondent was not at all paying the balance of consideration in spite of demands and the time was extended for the third time. The time for payment of balance of consideration was extended ultimately upto 1-10-1980 and even by that time, the balance of sale consideration was not paid. It was her case that the respondent was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and as such was hot entitled for the relief sought for in the suit.