C N VITTAL RAO Vs. SRIHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and decree of the learned Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad inO.S.No.1391 of 1981, dated 22-1 -1983 has been the subject of this appeal. The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.l391 of 1981.There spondent is the Plaintiff. The suit was filed for specific performance of the suit agreement, Ex A.1, dated 14-1-1976 followed by another agreement, Ex. A.2, dated 12-7-1976 or in the alternative for refund of Rs. 5,000/.- with interest at 18 per cent per annum from the date of receipt till payment, for costs, etc. The suit property is described in the Plaint schedule as follows:-

(2.) In this appeal, although several grounds were raised, Mr. E. Manohar, Teamed Advocate for the appellant, who is the defendant in the suit, has raised specific contentions as part of grounds while challenging the decree of the trail court viz., (1). The decree passed by the trial court is not enforceable or executable in view of the suit agreements and the decree violating Section 5, 10, 20 and 42 of the Act, (2). The suit agreements are void in view of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, in view of the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, (3). The exemption granted by the Government under Ex.A.5 is illegal, passed without jurisdiction by the Government and therefore, it is void ab initio. (4). The suit agreements have become frustrated in view of the provisions of the Urban Land ceiling Act, 197 6 and the decree passed by the trial court becomes redundant and un-enforceable, (5). The decree of the trial court is void ab initio in law by virtue of the provisions of the Urban Land Ceilings Act, 1976 and formally this Court has to set aside the same and (6). The decree passed by the learned trial Judge cannot be thus sustained and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

(3.) Mr. Subba Reddy, Learned Advocate for the respondent has repelled all the contentions of the appellant above and has stated his own contentions that the decree of the trial Court was totally justified both on facts and law. According to him, the respondent had no objection to execute the sale deed on any ground, except in regard to the market value, etc. which has been categorically confirmed in his testimony and therefore, now it is not open to him to go back and challenge the decree on a technical ground of law, which according to him is not correctly placed before the Court. It is contended by him that the law settled so far empowers the Court to pass a conditional decree for specific performance subject to the exemption to be obtained by the parties to the suit from the competent authority or the Government under the Act. Even assuming that for any reason the suit agreements are invalid or void, etc., that shall not ensure to the benefit of the appellant without seeking a declaration that they are void for any reason contravening the provisions of the Act and the concept of void or voidability for a particular purpose may not be the same in regard to the consequences between the parties subject to the final result of the law. He has contended that the appellant himself has approached the Government for exemption and he is not against the exemption granted, but, he wants the exemption in regard to all the properties regarding which exemption has been declined and he is totally estopped from raising the contention that the exemption granted by the Government under Ex.A.5 is inoperative or invalid just because it is conditional or restricted only to the extent of the property covered under the suit agreements. As a whole, Mr. Subba Reddy has contended that the contentions of the appellant as above are motivated and of evasive conduct to avoid the suit agreements and the decree in question.