SAMBASIVA RAO Vs. BANGARU RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant in O.S. No. 703 of 1981 on the file of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is the appellant herein. The respondent plaintiff filed the suit bearing O.S. No. 703 of 1981 for specific performance of the agreement entered into between the appellant and the respondent on 30-9-65 and for permanent injunction restraining the appellant and his men from interfering in any manner with one acre, out of the 13 acres of the plaint schedule land, which was the subject-matter of the agreement for sale by the appellant to the respondent, under the above referred agreement. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent and directed the appellant to execute a regular deed of conveyance in favour of the respondent in respect of one acre out of the 13 acres of the plaint schedule property, as per the said agreement dt. 30-9-65 within two months and also directed division of the plaint schedule land and delivery of one acre out of the 13 acres to the respondent. In other words, the respondent's prayer for directing the specific performance of the agreement dt. 30-9-65 was allowed by the trial Court. The appellant filed an appeal, A.S. No. 302 of 1982, in the court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, challenging the decision of the trial court. The first appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) It is necessary to state the relevant facts ; An agreement (Ex.A-1) was entered into between the appellant and the respondent on 30-9-65, according to which, the appellant agreed to sell to the respondent one acre out of the 13 acres of land in S. No. 194/8 in Begumpst, Secunderabad. The appellant purchased the 13 acres of land, under a registered sale $ft4 dt- 3-9-65. Out of these 13 acres of land, oe acre was agreed to be sold by the appellant to the respondent for consideration of Rs. 500/- Clause 1 of the agreement is relevant and it is quoted below ;

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri S. Dasaratbarama Reddy, raised the following contentions : (i) The suit is barred by limitation under Article 54 of the schedule to the limitation Act ; (ii) There was unconscionable delay on the part of the respondent plaintiff in filing the suit and consequently discretion should not have been exercised to decree specific performance of the agreement dt. 30-9-65 ; and (iii) The respodent failed to indicate that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and there was no specific averment in the plaint of ths respondent's readings and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Consequently, the claim for specific performance of the agreement dated 30-9-65 should not have been entertained.