KONERU SYAM SUNDARA RAO Vs. PENDURTI KANAKA DURGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the judgment and decree of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, in O.S.No. 247 of 1983 is in challenge. The defendants are the appellants. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

(2.) The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 15-5-1980 executed by the defendants herein and the father of the 1st defendant by name Koneru Venkata Narayana, offering to sell the suit schedule property. According to the plaint averments, the defendants offered to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs. 19,250/-, an amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid as advance on the date of agreement, the balance of Rs.14,250/- was to be paid after the defendants obtain the permission from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities (for short 'ULC authorities') and intimate the same to the plaintiff. It was alleged that the defendants have not obtained the said permission and on account of their failure, the plaintiff got issued notices dated 22-1-1983 and 7-2-1983 calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance of consideration. Since there was no response, the suit was filed.

(3.) The appellants/defendants filed a written statement admitting execution of the agreement and receipt of Rs.5,000/-. However, it has been pleaded that the suit schedule property constituted 1/3rd share purchased by the father of the 1st defendant along with Koneru Vemkatratnam and Koneru Nagabhushanam Rao, though the suit schedule property and another 9 1/2 cents fell to the share of the 1st defendant, later he exchanged the same with one Koneru Lingaiah long time ago. It was pleaded in the written statement that the 1st defendant was very old at the time of execution of the agreement and he did not inform the 2nd defendant about the exchange, and on enquiry, it emerged that the property was in possession of one Lingaiah. It is also pleaded that the ULC authorities have rejected the request of the defendants for grant of permission stating that they have no title to the suit schedule property. The defendants further pleaded that they offered to refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- with 12% interest in view of their incapacity to sell the property.