BEEMANENI MAHALAKSHMI Vs. GANGUMALLA APPARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 30. 12. 1985, executed by her in favour of the respondent, for sale of ac. 17-39 cents within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule appended to the plaint (the suit land) is the appellant.

(2.) THE case of the respondent is, as the appellant agreed to sell the suit land to him or his nominee for Rs. 2,45,000/- he paid Rs. 55,000/- to her on the date of agreement as advance whereupon she executed Ex. A1 agreement dated 30. 12. 1985 for sale of the suit land in his favour. As per the said agreement he has to pay the balance sale consideration before the sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed in respect of the suit land within three months from the date of agreement. It is also agreed that the appellant has to execute the sale deed after measuring the suit land for arriving at the actual sale consideration payable. Though he is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, as the appellant was not ready with the original title deed in respect of the suit land, and did not obtain a Clearance Certificate from the Income Tax Department, and was not ready to perform her part of the contract, he got issued the original of Ex. A2 notice dated 6. 4. 1987 to the appellant seeking specific performance of the agreement for which the appellant sent Ex. A3 reply dated 14. 4. 1987 with some false and untenable allegations, and so he got issued the original of Ex. A4 rejoinder notice dated 13. 5. 1987 denying those allegations made in Ex. A3 reply notice and called upon the appellant to produce all the documents of her title to the suit land. As the appellant failed to comply with his request, the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of the suit land, or in the alternative for refund of the advance of Rs. 55,000/-paid by him to the appellant with interest at 121/2% from 30. 12. 1985 till date of payment.

(3.) THE case of the appellant is that she executed Ex. Al agreement in favour of the respondent agreeing to the terms mentioned therein. But the appellant, who was not having the balance sale consideration payable to her under the said agreement, with a view to gain time, was calling upon her to produce the order passed in the land ceiling proceedings of her vendor somayya Chowdary, though he entered into the agreement after taking a copy of the order in that land ceiling proceedings and after he was informed that the original sale deed in respect of the suit land, which was filed in the land ceiling proceedings, would be taken return of after termination of the said proceedings, and so the appellant, who is not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, as per the terms agreed, is not entitled to the relief of specific performance sought.