D SARALA Vs. P PRATAP REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common judgment of District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dated 30-03-1994 in Original Suit Nos.20 of 1993, 91 of 1993 and 92 of 1993 led to these appeals.

(2.) The parties are referred to herein as the vendor, vendor's husband, vendee and subsequent purchaser respectively. The facts leading to the appeals are that the vendor purchased 300 square yards of land in survey No.262 of Hayathnagar Village and Taluk, Ranga Reddy District from D. Tanesha under a registered sale deed dated 19-08-1982, registered on 20-08-1982. The vendor entered into an agreement of sale with the vendee on 21-03-1984 agreeing to sell the said 300 square yards for Rs.75,000/-, receiving an earnest money of Rs.40,000/-. The vendor further received Rs.5,000/- from the vendee on 01-04-1984 under a receipt and the balance consideration as per the agreement of sale had to be paid within 45 days from 21-03-1984. The vendee claimed that she approached the vendor and her husband on 30-04-1984 requesting to receive the balance sale consideration and register the document and on the request of the vendor and her husband, the vendee obtained a bank draft for Rs.30,000/- on 04-05-1984. When the vendor and her husband were postponing the matter, the vendee issued legal notices on 29-05-1984 and 12-06-1984. The vendor and her husband gave a reply stating that they entered into an oral agreement of sale for 100 square yards out of 300 square yards with the subsequent purchaser on 30-08-1982 and that the vendee's agreement was subject to clearance of the earlier transaction with the subsequent purchaser. The vendee gave a reply on 28-06-1984 and issued a telegraphic notice on 13-07-1984. As there was no response, the vendee filed O.S. No.20 of 1993 (O.S. No.222 of 1984) for specific performance against the vendor and her husband. The subsequent purchaser was impleaded as a party to the suit without seeking any relief against him in pursuance of the order in I.A. No.44 of 1989, dated 05-04-1989. The vendor and her husband denied delivering possession of 300 square yards to the vendee under the agreement.

(3.) They also claimed that the original document of title and other documents were stolen from their house on 21-06-1984, on which a police complaint was given. But the vendee's reply notice dated 28-06-1984 mentioned the document to be with her.