C MANOHAR REDDY Vs. ALOPI SHANKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) two appeals are directed against the same judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.409 of 1988, dated 09.09.1996 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, we consider it expedient to dispose of both these appeals by way of this common judgment.

(2.) A.S.No.2860 of 1996 is filed by the plaintiffs having been aggrieved by the refusal to grant decree for specific performance and A.S.No.672 of 1997 is filed by the defendants aggrieved by a direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards development charges with interest thereon at 18% per annum. The parties to these two appeals will hereinafter be referred in this judgment as plaintiffs and defendants, for the purpose of convenience.

(3.) The facts, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of these two appeals in brief, are as follows: The defendants 1 to 5 are brothers and they entered into an agreement of sale, dated 02.10.1987 with the plaintiffs who are relatives and friends inter se agreeing to sell Ac. 135-00 of land covered by Sy.Nos.152, 153 and 181 to 194 situated at Tummaloor village and also the lands covered by Sy.Nos.461, 478 and 479 situated at Mankhal village @ Rs.10,000/- per acre. On the date of agreement, the plaintiffs paid Rs. 1,00,000/- as earnest money and further agreed to pay a sum of Rs.9 lakhs towards 75% of the agreed sale consideration in six monthly instalments commencing from 01.11.1987 and the remaining balance amount of 25% at the time of execution of registered sale deed or deeds. In pursuance of the said agreement, the plaintiffs paid the first instalment of Rs.1,00,000/- on 02.11.1987. On the same day, the plaintiffs through their advocates got published in the newspapers Eanadu and Deccan Chronicle under Exs.A-4 and A-5 informing the general public that they intend to purchase the said Ac. 135-00 of land and inviting objections if any for their proposed purchase. In response to the said publication, one K. Rajeshwar Rao addressed a letter Ex.A-7 to the advocates of the plaintiffs on 05.11.1987 stating that the defendants have no right whatsoever in the lands and that he is the inamdar having right over the property and that there is a suit pending in O.S.No.128 of 1987 between him and the defendants on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District in respect of those lands. Further, on 07.11.1987 the said K.Rajeshwar Rao issued paper publication also under Ex.A-8 to the same effect informing the general public that he is the rightful owner of the said lands of Thummaloor village and the defendants have no right whatsoever in the said lands. In response to the said notice Ex.A-8, the defendants issued rejoinder publication under Ex.A-9 dated 20.11.1987 through their counsel stating that Sri K.Rajeshwar Rao misrepresented the facts and misguided the plaintiffs who entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants and that Rajeshwar Rao and his mother Yadgiramma have no concern with the above said lands and that the defendants' father was the protected tenant and also purchased the same from Yadagiramma, the mother of Sri K.Rajeshwar Rao and Smt. Rambai and that after abolition of imams, the defendants obtained the 'occupancy certificate' under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act and thus the defendants are the owners and possessors of the lands and that when Sri K.RajeshwarRao and his mother tried to interfere through some unsocial elements, the defendants have filed OS 128 of 1983 against the said Rajeshwar Rao and his mother and that the said Rajeshwar Rao though contested initially, remained ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed in favour of defendants herein favour on 25.09.1984 and that subsequently an application in I.A.No.416 of 1984 was field by Sri K.Rajeshwar Rao and his mother for setting aside the ex parte decree and it is pending. It is further stated in the rejoinder publication Ex.A-9 that Rajeshwar Rao with mala fide intention issued publication under Ex.A-8 with a view to extract amounts from the defendants as well as from the intending purchasers by making false claims and by misguiding the intending purchasers. While the matters stood thus, the plaintiffs did not pay the subsequent instalments payable on 01.12.1987 of Rs.2 lakhs, on 01.01.1988 of Rs.2 lakhs, on 01.02.1988 of Rs.2 lakhs, on 01.03.1988 of Rs.1 lakh and on 01.04.1988 of another Rs.1 lakh. But, on 25.06.1988 the plaintiffs got issued legal notice under Ex.A-10 through their counsel to the defendants that the defendants did not inform about the pendency of the litigation between them and Sri K.Rajeshwar Rao at the time of entering into the agreement of sale and that they were surprised when Rajeshwar Rao addressed a letter to them informing about the litigation and that after such objection raised by Sri K.Rajeshwar Rao, the defendants represented that they would settle the claim of Sri K.Rajeshwar Rao, but failed to settle the matter with Sri K.Rajeshwar Rao who created cloud over the title of the defendants and that the defendants are liable to clear the cloud over the title of the defendants created by Sri K.Rajeshwar Rao and then obtain lay out map by an approved surveyor, permission to sell the lands from the ceiling authorities and title deeds pertaining to the portion of the land covered by agreement for sale situated in Mankhal village for their verification. It is further pleaded in the said notice that they were always ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration and obtain the due execution and registration of sale deed in their favour or their nominees, provided the defendants settle the litigation between them and Rajeshwar Rao.