B VISWNADHA SARMA Vs. P SUSEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in L.P.A.No.69 of 1998 are that it is arising out of A.S.No.2350 of 1982. A.S.No.2350 of 1982 was filed to challenge the judgment in O.S.No.281 of 1980 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kakinada. The parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.

(2.) The plaintiff in the suit contended that the suit property was self-acquired property of the 1st defendant and 1st defendant had offered to sell the property to the plaintiff who had agreed to purchase the same. An agreement was executed between the parties on 23.07.1980 and it was agreed by the 1st defendant to sell the property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.5,000/- was paid as an advance on the date of agreement itself. The remaining balance consideration of Rs.35,000/- had to be paid at the time of registration and registration had to be done on or before 23.08.1980. It was also stipulated in the agreement that in case if plaintiff fail to obtain registration within the prescribed time, the plaintiff would be required to pay the remaining amount with an interest at the rate of 24% per annum. It was also agreed that if the defendants fail to execute the agreement by refusing to receive the amount, they would pay Rs.300/- per month towards damages for depriving the plaintiff from use and occupation of the suit property. The plaintiff contended that inspite of her and her husbands requests to accept the remaining consideration and execute the sale deed, the defendants did not receive the sale consideration nor executed the sale deed. The defendants however on several occasions promised to do the needful but failed. On 11.9.1980 and on 12.9.1980 the defendants were requested by plaintiffs husband on behalf of the plaintiff to execute the sale deed, but the 1s defendant asked the plaintiff to come after some time. In spite of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform her part of the contract, the defendants were postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a notice calling upon the defendants to carryout their part of the contract. The plaintiff again went to the defendants on 15.9.1980 and requested them to execute the sale deed, but the defendants did not do so. The plaintiff therefore, filed the suit.

(3.) After service on the defendants, the defendants No.1 and 2 filed their separate written statements. Mainly two defences were taken by the defendants; one was that the defendant No.1 who had executed the agreement, was not mentally fit to execute the agreement at the time when the agreement was executed. Another defence which was taken was that the property was joint between the defendants No.1 and 2 and therefore the 1st defendant could have not executed the agreement in favour of plaintiff for the property in question.