SARDAR AMARJEET SINGH Vs. NANDU BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the suit - O.S.No. 514 of 1974, on the file of the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale (Ex. A-1), dated 5-12-1971, executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. The agreement of sale relates to vacant land of an extent of 6240 Sq.Yards in S.No. 157, etc., situated at Ameerpet, Hyderabad city. The sale price as per ; the agreement is Rs. 70,280/-. Defendant Nos. 3 to 7 are those who purchased the same property under an alleged prior agreement of sale i.e., Ex. B-8, dated 20-6-1968. The suit for specific performance was dismissed by the trial Court mainly on the ground that the vendee failed to establish that he was ready and willing to fulfil his part of the obligations under the agreement and his conduct in not taking any steps for considerable time disentitled him to the specific relief sought for in the suit.

(2.) On appeal, the learned single Judge affirmed the judgment of the lower Court. The learned Judge, while affirming the finding of the trial Court on the question of readiness and willingness, concurred with the view of the trial Court that in the facts and circumstances of the case the relief of specific performance cannot be granted. The learned single Judge also came to the conclusion that the inaction on the part of the vendee-plaintiff was such that there was an abandonment of the rights under the agreement. The learned single Judge also took the view that the agreement was not really intended to be an agreement of sale but it was meant to be a security for the money lent to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by the plaintiff. In other words, Ex. A-l was treated to be a document executed in relation to a money lending transaction. To this extent the learned single Judge deferred with the view taken by the trial Court and answered the additional issue No. 9(1) in favour of the defendants. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the agreement of sale set up by defendant Nos. 3 to 7 was disbelieved by the trial Court and the learned single Judge did not reverse that finding. The defendant Nos. 3 to 7 made permanent constructions on the land in question during the pendency of the suit and after obtaining the exemption under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. However, an undertaking was also given by the said defendants to remove the structure in case the decree is granted in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) We shall briefly refer to the relevant clauses in the agreement, Ex. A-1. The sale price and the extent of the land have already been mentioned. Rs. 23,000/- was paid by way of advance as earnest money on the date of the agreement. As per clause 2, the purchaser was required to pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 47,280/- at the time of .execution and registration of the sale deed. Clause 3 obliges the vendors to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the purchaser or his nominee within the nine months from the date of the agreement. The land agreed to be sold shall actually be measured one week prior to the date of registration and the correct boundaries shall be fixed. The vendors undertake to leave 30 feet wide road on the Northern side of the land. Clause 9 of the agreement says that the vendors shall hand over the original or the certified copies of all the documents relating to title and possession of the vendors within one month from the date of the agreement. The possession of the land was agreed to be delivered free from all encumbrances on the date of registration of the sale deed. Clause 12 reads as under;