GAMPALA NAGA RAJU Vs. SHAIK NAZEERUNNISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant in the above second appeal. The present second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dtd. 29/11/2017 in A.S.No.14 of 2015 on the file of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 5/12/2014 in O.S.No.259 of 2011 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the O.S.No.259 of 2011.

(3.) The plaintiff filed the suit seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dtd. 23/7/2011 or alternatively for refund of advance sale consideration of Rs.90,000.00 with interest and costs etc. In the plaint, it was contended inter alia that defendants 1 and 2 entered into a contract of sale dtd. 23/7/2011 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property on bill contract rate of Rs.4,10,000.00 by receiving advance sale consideration of Rs.90,000.00; that as per the terms of agreement of sale, balance sale consideration is to be paid by the plaintiff within 30 days and thereafter, defendants 1 and 2 have to execute registered sale deed either in favour of plaintiff or his nominees; that if the plaintiff fails to pay balance consideration within the stipulated time of 30 days, defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to interest @24% p.a. on balance sale consideration; that the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but defendants 1 and 2 failed to perform their part of contract; that plaintiff got issued legal notice dtd. 2/8/2011 calling upon the defendants 1 and 2 to execute sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration; that defendants 3 and 4, being daughters of 1st defendant and sisters of 2nd defendant, got issued a reply notice dtd. 11/8/2011; that defendants 1 and 2 also got issued a reply notice dtd. 19/8/2011, wherein it was stated that they alone cannot sell the entire schedule property and ready to return the amount of Rs.90,000.00 and further requested the plaintiff to return the agreement amount; that the terms of agreement of sale dtd. 23/7/2011 are binding on defendants 3 and 4 and hence, filed the suit.