M.SUBHASH REDDY Vs. VIDYASAGAR S.NITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal suit is filed against the Judgment and decree dtd. 25/11/2009 in O.S.No.37 of 2003, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad.

(2.) The suit vide O.S.No.37 of 2003, was filed by appellant/plaintiff against respondent/defendant for specific performance of Agreement of Sale dtd. 24/9/2002. The trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. There is no evidence on behalf of the respondent/defendant, but got marked Ex.B1 copy of the Judgment in O.S.No.310 of 2006, on behalf of the defendant. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides and evidence on record, decreed the suit to the extent of return of amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 with interest @ 6% per annum from 24/9/2002 to till date without costs and respondent/defendant was directed to deposit the amount within two months, failing which, he was directed to pay interest @ 18% per annum. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, plaintiff therein preferred the present appeal.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff mainly contended that respondent/defendant is the owner of the land measuring Acs.5 - 04 gts in Sy.No.280 and land admeasuring Ac.1 - 24 gts in Sy.Nos.276, 277, 278 and 279, totally admeasuring Acs.6 - 28 gts, situated at Surangal village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District. He entered into an Agreement of Sale with respondent under Ex.A.1 on 24/9/2002, for an amount of Rs.5,49,000.00 and paid Rs.1,00,000.00 as advance on the same day and the respondent/defendant had issued Ex.A2 and also delivered possession to him. Later, when he requested the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute the registered sale deed, he did not turn up, as such he issued legal notice dtd. 1/3/2003 and respondent gave reply to the said notice on 17/3/2003, as such he filed the suit for specific performance. He was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration, but the trial Court erroneously not granted decree of specific performance, but only directed the respondent/defendant to pay the advance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000.00 with interest. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 was not considered properly and the respondent/defendant had not taken any steps for cancellation of the Agreement of Sale, as such time is not the essence of contract. Therefore, requested this Court to set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.