CHINTALA VIJAYALAXMI Vs. S.RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd defendant in Original Suit No.120 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short, "the trial Court "), preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in the said Suit, dated 30.06.2003, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of contract of sale dated 13.04.1994 in respect of land admeasuring 680 square yards forming part of 1280 square yards in Plot No.9 in Sy.No.129/1 of Kothapet Village, Uppal Mandal, Rangareddy District, was decreed. Appellant herein is the 2nd defendant, 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent herein is the 1st defendant before the trial Court. For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties in O.S.No.120 of 1995, before the trial Court, will be adopted throughout this judgment.

(2.) It is alleged in the plaint that the defendants are the owners of open land admeasuring 1280 square yards bearing Plot No.9 in Sy.No.129/1 situated at Kothapet Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 18.03.1989. The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale, dated 13.04.1994, with the defendants to purchase land admeasuring 680 square yards out of 1280 square yards for a total consideration of Rs.1,60,000/-. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- to the defendants as part of sale consideration on the date of the agreement and the same was acknowledged by the defendants. Under the agreement referred to above, it is stipulated that the balance consideration of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants at the time of registration of sale deed on or before 06.07.1994. At the time of agreement of sale, the defendants handed over the link documents to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has expressed his willingness to the defendants that he is ready much earlier than 06.07.1994 with the amount and requested the defendants to execute the sale deed and receive the amount at the time of registration, but for the reasons best known, the defendants were evading to do so. Though the plaintiff paid almost the entire sale consideration except a paltry sum of Rs.5,000/- and offered to pay the balance amount, the defendants evaded to fulfil their obligation under the agreement of sale with an ulterior motive to deprive the plaintiff of his rights and benefits arising out of the transaction. As the defendants failed to give any response to the repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 28.12.1994 to the defendants. The 1st defendant refused to receive the said notice, whereas the 2nd defendant received the said notice. After considerable delay, the defendants got issued reply on 27.02.1995. It is further stated that the allegation made in the reply notice that the plaintiff was not ready to pay the balance amount is incorrect and untenable. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the terms of agreement and still continued to be ready to fulfil his obligation under the agreement. It is also stated in the plaint that in view of the fact that almost the entire consideration was paid at the time of agreement, the possession of the schedule property was delivered to the plaintiff. However, after the receipt of the legal notice, the defendants trespassed into the suit schedule property and, therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to ask for possession of the suit schedule property also.

(3.) The 1st defendant filed written statement denying material allegations of the plaint, inter alia contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance is neither maintainable in law nor on facts. It is admitted that the defendants are owners of plot No.9. It is also stated that the agreement of sale was executed only as a security to the hand loan advanced by the plaintiff 's attorney holder, M.Linga Murthy, as such a paltry amount of Rs.5,000/- was mentioned in the said agreement of sale. The G.P.A. holder of plaintiff had executed through the defendants, a G.P.A. in favour of one Anand, who is none other than the sister 's son of G.P.A. holder of the plaintiff. The said G.P.A. was executed on 13.04.1994 itself to carry out the terms of agreement of sale dated 13.04.1994. It is also stated that having paid a sum of Rs.1,55,000/-, the question of seeking time till 06.07.1994 shows that the agreement of sale is not executed as a sale transaction. It is further stated that the 1st defendant has not received any legal notice as alleged in the plaint. As per the terms of the agreement of sale, the time is the essence of the contract. As the terms are not complied with, the same has been deemed to have been cancelled. The G.P.A. holder of the plaintiff is a licensed money lender. In the said money transactions, the defendants are forced to sign on several sale papers due to the pressures of the G.P.A. holder to pay the amount. The 1st defendant addressed a letter on 07.12.1994 intimating cancellation of the agreement of sale and also the cancellation of the G.P.A. bearing document No.302 dated 13.04.1994 and to return back the original document. It is further stated that the name of the plaintiff was shown only as dummy to avoid taxation problem. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.