B. PANKAJAM Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 30/5/2011 passed in O.S.No.7 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad.

(2.) One Ram Singh-plaintiff filed suit seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale and for perpetual injunction over Plot bearing No.11 in Sy.No.74/12 admeasuring 292.6 square metres along with two rooms situated at East Marredpally, Secunderabad, (hereinafter called as 'suit plot ') against B.Pankajam and B.Mamtha-wife and daughter of late M.Babu-defendants. The plaintiff would state that late M.Babu purchased the suit plot from one Harinarayan Rathi vide Sale Deed dtd. 7/4/1993 and thereafter he offered to sell the suit plot to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.17,00,000.00. Accordingly, an Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (with possession) dtd. 1/4/2004 was executed and on the same day the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00through Account Payee Cheque drawn on A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, West Marredpally Branch, Secunderabad, to late M.Babu and it was agreed between both the parties that the remaining balance sale consideration was to be paid on or before 31/12/2004. The plaintiff would contend that late M.Babu agreed to obtain all necessary and required permissions, clearances etc. for completing the sale transaction and also delivered possession to him in part performance of the agreement. The plaintiff would also submit that since the date of agreement he is in lawful possession of the suit plot and that he also constructed two rooms along with compound wall and gate with his own expenses and obtained electricity connection also. The plaintiff would also state that he was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and the sale deed is to be executed in his favour. Late M.Babu died on 29/4/2006. After knowing about the death of M.Babu, the plaintiff visited his house and informed regarding execution of agreement of sale in his favour by M.Babu to the defendants as well as to the sister of Late M.Babu. He would submit that as there was no response from the defendants, he got issued a legal notice on 20/10/2006 calling upon them to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration, for which the defendants issued a reply notice dtd. 20/10/2006 and returned Rs.1,00,000.00 by way of cheque dtd. 16/10/2006. The defendants in their reply notice stated that the agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney executed by Late M.Babu was as a security to the money lend by the plaintiff to M.Babu and the value of the property was not less than Rs.30,00,000.00 during the year 2004 and there is no necessity for them to sell the suit plot and that the plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale consideration on or before 31/12/2004 and he should have obtained consent from Late M.Babu for extending time and that the possession was not delivered to him. Merely permitting to stock materials in one room which was built by Late M.Babu, does not mean that possession was delivered to him. The suit agreement is not valid without paying stamp duty and penalty and it ought to have been registered. The Government filed a suit in LGC No.167 of 1997 claiming that the land in the vicinity of the suit plot is a Government land. In the suit plot there was a compound wall with gate in existence and that the plaintiff constructed only one room while the other room was constructed by Late M.Babu.

(3.) In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and the attestor of the suit agreement as P.W.2. Exs.A1 to A7 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff. The first defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B28 on her behalf. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, decreed the suit directing the defendants to receive the balance consideration of Rs.16,00,000.00 and execute the sale deed within two months from the date of judgment, failing which the plaintiff was directed to deposit the amount in the Court within one month. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants in the suit preferred this appeal.