P L RAJU Vs. NANDAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Introduction: Dr. Nandan Singh, respondent in this Appeal/plaintiff in O.S. No.899/86 on the file of I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad had instituted the suit for refund of part payment amount paid towards agreement of sale dated 22-5-1985, Ex.A-1, with interest thereon against P.L. Raju, appellant herein/defendant in the suit. The suit was decreed for Rs. 1,75,000/- with interest of 6%. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal had been preferred by the unsuccessful defendant.

(2.) Submissions of Sri M.R.K. Choudary: Sri M.R.K. Choudary, the learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant/defendant made the following submissions. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the Court may have to decide in a matter of this nature who is the defaulter and a person who had cancelled the agreement of sale cannot take advantage of his own wrong and also cannot claim refund of the amount having committed breach of contract. The learned Counsel also in detail explained Sections 39, 64, 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act in this regard. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the conditions specified in Ex.A-1 in general and Condition No. 11 in particular. The learned Senior Counsel while further elaborating his submissions had explained about the suit said to have been pending and the relevancy thereof and would contend that this has nothing to do with the defect of marketable title or any other similar reason whatsoever so as to avoid the contract and hence this ground cannot be taken as a ground by the respondent/plaintiff in the suit. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions and further had distinguished the decisions on which reliance was placed by the other Counsel.

(3.) Submissions made by Sri Rama Krishna Reddy: Sri Rama Krishna Reddy, the learned Counsel representing Sri A. Anantha Reddy, Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, had taken this Court through the correspondence between the parties, the series of notices, the contents thereof, the conditions specified in Ex.A-1 and had explained that in the facts and circumstances the cancellation made and refund prayed for cannot be said to be an unjustifiable one. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the obligations to be complied with by a seller and also would comment that the defect in title or the marketable title especially in the light of the pendency of some litigation may have to be viewed not only in the point of view of the seller but also in the point of view of the buyer. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, evidence, available on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court and would submit that both in law and also in equity, the decree passed by the trial Court is fair and just and the same need not be disturbed. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.