ARJUN PRADEEPAK Vs. G VANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S.No. 74 of 1999 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District filed this appeal against judgment and decree dated 19-9-2002. In the course of this judgment the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

(2.) Undisputed facts for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: Plot No. 176 (A-8) admeasuring 1030.00 Sq.yards of 866.93 Sq. mts. in Survey No. 218/1/2 situated at Air force Officers Co-op. Housing Society Limited, Vayupuri within the limits of Malkajgiri Municipality is the suit property. Air Force Officers Co-operative Housing Society Limited allotted the said plot to Sri C. Satyanarayana, who is the father of second defendant. The first defendant is the son of the second defendant. The said Satyanarayana under a registered gift deed dated 11-3-1985 gifted the suit property to his grandson namely the first defendant. At that time first defendant was a minor. Later the second defendant filed O.P.No. 19 of 1995 on the file of District Judge, Rangareddy District and obtained permission of Court to sell the suit property belonging to the minor, first defendant. The District Judge accorded permission by his order dated 28-2-1995. Thereafter, on behalf of first defendant second defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 8,20,000/-. Under receipt Ex. A-3, he received a part consideration of Rs, 6,00,000/- on 2-7-1996 from plaintiff. Subsequently, first defendant attained majority. The plaintiff and defendants entered into a written agreement of sale dated 12-3-1998. It was registered on 16-3-1998. The original sale agreement was in the custody of defendants. They produced it before the COurt at the fag end of trial. Registration copy of the said sale agreement was marked as Ex. A-2. The original sale agreement was marked as Ex. B-4. The terms and conditions of the sale agreement are as follows :

(3.) It is seriously contended by the learned counsel for the appellants before this Court that first condition in the sale agreement is not controlled in any manner by fourth condition, it is an independent term and as per first condition the plaintiff is bound to pay the balance of sale consideration by 19-3-1999 irrespective of the fact whether the defendants obtained income tax clearance certificate by 19-3-1998 or not. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that time is not the essence of contract and judgment and decree of the trial Court are not liable to be interfered with in the present appeal.