M SATYANARAYANA Vs. MAKKAN BHARATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal has been preferred by the first defendant in O. S. No. 95 of 1997 on the file of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad. The respondents are the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property reguesting the Court to direct the first defendant to execute a registered sale deed after receipt of the balance of sale consideration and if he fails to do the same, the Court to execute the sale deed.

(2.) THE averments of the plaint are briefly as follows:

(3.) THE first defendant filed a written statement with the following averments in brief. The plaintiff was the tenant of the first defendant in respect of the mulgi covered by the suit schedule. Though his mother inducted the plaintiff as a tenant, there was no payment of any amount towards advance under any oral agreement in the year 1985. After the death of Yellamma, the first defendant became the absolute owner being the only legal heir of Yellamma. The plaintiff committed default in payment of rents. Therefore, an eviction petition covered by B. C. No. 625 of 1996 was filed on the file of I Additional Rent Controller, hyderabad and the same was pending enquiry. The first defendant never offered to sell the plaintiff schedule property to the plaintiff and he never executed the agreement of sale covered by Ex. A-1 on 22-3-1991 and no advance sale consideration was received by him. The agreement is a fabricated document. The second defendant and himself are not in talking terms for the past several years, therefore, the question of any understanding or settlement between them does not arise. The first defendant gave suitable reply to the notice issued by the plaintiff. When the plaintiff committed default in payment of rents, the first defendant filed the eviction petition and as a counter blast, the plaintiff filed the present suit on the basis of a fabricated agreement of sale. As per the recitals of Ex. A-1, the sale deed was to be executed on or before 21-3-1992 and as the time was essence of the contract, the suit is hopelessly bad and barred by limitation. Since the partition suit was pending as on the date of the alleged agreement of sale, it is hit by the principle of Ms-pendency and the agreement has no legal sanctity. The suit is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs.