KATARI SATYAVATHI Vs. PULIDINDI DEVA SUNDARAYYA @ VITRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are filed by Katari Satyavathi, the plaintiff in O.S.No.185/91 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry/defendant in O.S.No.210/86 aggrieved by the Common Judgment made in the aforesaid suits decreeing the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent/ plaintiff in A.S.No.74/96-O.S.No. 210/86 and further partly decreeing the suit filed by the said Katari Satyavathi as plaintiff in O.S.No. 185/91- A.S.No. 889/96. The said suit O.S.No. 185/ 91 was filed by the said Katari Satyavathi for recovery of possession by ordering eviction and also claiming profits, damages etc., The learned Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry recorded common evidence. The defendant in the suit for specific performance Smt. K.Satyavathi was examined as P.W. and her husband was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. Likewise, D.W. 1, the plaintiff in the suit for specific performance and the defendant in the other suit was examined and D.W.2, the scribe the Ex.B-1 sale agreement in question was examined. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Judge recorded certain findings and ultimately decreed the suit for specific performance on the strength of agreement of sale aforesaid and as far as the relief of possession and damages and mesne profits are concerned, the said suit was partly decreed directing payment of arrears of rent at Rs. 100.00 per month from 14-1-1983 till the date of execution of the registered sale-deed and however the relief of delivery of possession was denied. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant and the plaintiff in the respective suits aforesaid had preferred these appeals respectively.

(2.) Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsel representing the appellant in both the suits would maintain that inasmuch as this is a matter concerned with the landlady and the tenant, the learned Judge recorded certain reasons and negatived the relief of eviction or the relief of recovery of possession in O.S.No.185/91 and the said findings cannot be found fault in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel also would maintain that in the event of the appellant as defendant succeeding in O.S.No. 210/86 the suit for specific performance, her remedy is to invoke the jurisdiction of the concerned learned Rent Controller since the provisions of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 are applicable inasmuch as the building in question is in Rajahmundry. The learned counsel also would further submit that if the recitals of Ex.B-1 are carefully analysed and read along with the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W.2 and the stand taken by D.W.1 and also in the light of Ex.A. 1, Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.5, it is clear that at no point of time, the plaintiff in O.S.No. 210/86 was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and hence in the facts and circumstances of the case, decreeing the suit for specific performance cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the contents of the notices and would maintain that despite the fact that specifically it was specified that the agreement to be taken as cancelled, the learned Judge totally erred in granting the relief of specific performance. The counsel also would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below had not exercised the discretion properly and the evidence available on record had not been appreciated in proper perspective.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent in these Appeals would maintain that the facts are crystal clear, execution of Ex.B.1 is not in controversy at all and time is not the essence of contract. The evidence of D.W.1 is that he had been approaching the landlady repeatedly and the landlady had been postponing the execution of the sale-deed though he had been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and hence the learned Judge arrived at the correct conclusion and decreed the suit for specific performance and partly decreed the suit filed by the landlady. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Judge and supported the findings recorded in toto.