KUNISETTI SAMBRAJYAM Vs. SRIRAM CHENCHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 1 and 2 instituted the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale executed in their favour by the third respondent in respect of a building within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule appended to the plaint, which hereinafter would be referred to as the suit property. Their case, in brief, is that the suit property was the ancestral property of the third respondent and his father Nageswara Rao and after the death of Nageswara Rao, the widow and daughters of Nageswara Rao i.e., mother and sisters of third respondent, executed a registered relinquishment deed relinquishing their rights in favour of third respondent, who offered to sell the suit property to them for Rs.74,000/- and received Rs.15,000/- as earnest money. As per the agreement, the balance sale consideration has to be paid on or before 5-9-1983. Though they are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, third respondent is trying to evade the contract. Hence, the suit for specific performance.

(2.) Third respondent filed his written statement admitting execution of agreement of sale of the suit property in favour of Respondents 1 and 2 and contending that it is they i.e., Respondents 1 and 2 that are not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and so they are not entitled to the relief sought.

(3.) During the course of hearing, when it is stated that the only dispute between the parties relates to delivery of possession of the suit property, since third respondent offered to deliver possession of the suit property if Respondents 1 and 2 were to pay the amount due and payable under the agreement, after Respondents 1 and 2 deposited the amount payable by them as per the agreement into Court by way of a demand draft, the Trial Court deputed an Amin to deliver the suit property to Respondents 1 and 2, whereupon the appellant, who is the sister of third respondent, having resisted delivery of possession of the suit property filed I.A. No. 1360 of 1986 to implead her as second defendant in the suit, which was allowed and was added as second defendant in the suit. Then she filed a written statement contending that the agreement of sale relied on by Respondents 1 and 2 is a sham and nominal transaction entered into with a view to drive her out of the suit property, which was gifted to her by her father as 'pasupu kumkuma' at the time of her betrothal in 1966 and was put in her possession from whence she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment thereof by paying taxes to the municipality. The relinquishment deed allegedly executed by her mother and sisters was obtained on misrepresentation, for income tax purpose and hence is void as no money was paid to anybody under the said document. Since third respondent has no title to possession over the suit property, Respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to any relief.