PATTABHIRAM REDDY Vs. SRINIVASULU REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question fur determination in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages in addition to specific performance as contemplated under Section 21 (3) of the Specific Relief Act, 47 of 1963 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performances against three of the defendants of the agreement to sell entered into by them as per Ex. A-1, dated 2-3-1974 when the defendants refused to perform the contract. The defence is that the suit agreement is vitiated by fraud, the amount of Rs. 2000/- was not paid on the date of the agreement and they are not exclusive owners of the property as there are two more co-partners entitled to 2/5th share in the property and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The court below on this controversy framed relevant issues and found that Ex. A-l is not vitiated by fraud, the amount of Rs. 2000/- was paid and the defendants are exclusive owners of the property and the suit is liable to be decreed.

(3.) The plaintiff besides asking for specific performances also prayed for damages for Rs. 5000/- as stipulated in the agreement. The court below on this question covered by issue No. 7 held that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation of Rs. 5.000/- as stipulated in the contract in the case of breach and accordingly decreed the suit for specific performance with additional relief of damages for a sum of Rs. 5000/- The defendants did not question the decree for specific performance and in fact that portion of the decree for specific performance was executed and the plaintiff got into possession. This appeal is filed by the defendants questioning the compensation of Rs. 5000/- awarded in addition to the decree for specific performance of the agreement.