Second Appeal No. 1437 of 2011. Case: Smt. Chama Radamma and others Vs Chama Venu Gopal Reddy and others. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Second Appeal No. 1437 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R. Mahender Reddy, Adv. and For Respondents: L Prabhakar Reddy, Advs. |
| Judges | B. N. Rao Nalla, J. |
| Issue | Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) - Section 16(c) |
| Citation | AIR 2012 AP 169 |
| Judgement Date | April 02, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
-
The Second Appeal is listed under the caption "for admission". However, at the request of both sides, the Second Appeal itself is taken up for disposal.
-
The unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the Courts below i.e., the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court filed this Second Appeal.
-
The appellants herein had filed suit in O. S. No. 196 of 2000 on the file of the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 2-10-1997 in respect of the suit schedule property and the same was dismissed on 31-7-2006. Aggrieved thereby the appellants had preferred appeal suit in A. S. No. 215 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, however, the same was dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court on 26-9-2011. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred this Second Appeal contending, inter alia, that both the Courts below had failed to appreciate the evidence and other material on record in proper perspective and thereby misdirected themselves in coming to erroneous decision in dismissing the suit and the appeal suit.
-
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in the O. S. before the trial Court.
-
It is the case of the plaintiffs that they had filed O. S. No. 196 of 2000 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 2-10-1997 (Ex. A. 1) stating that the defendant No.1 being the absolute owner of the suit schedule property agreed to sell the same to late Sri Chama Narsimha Reddy, the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 for a total consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/- and entered into agreement of sale on 2-10-1997. The suit schedule property is agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 3.37gts. in Survey Nos. 65 and 66 of Kuntloor Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Defendant No. 1 received Rs. 1,00,000/- towards part of sale consideration. Defendant No. 1 assured that sale deed would be executed in favour of the late Sri Chama Narsimha Reddy within one year from the date of recording his name in the revenue records. Defendant No.1 had also permitted late Sri Chama Narsimha Reddy to demarcate the layout of the suit schedule property by giving possession of the suit schedule property. Defendant No. 1 further assured and agreed that he would secure and produce encumbrance certificate for a period of 13 years and also would clear of all taxes, cesses etc. payable to various departments. These averments find place in the agreement of sale dated 2-10-1997. However, defendant No.1 failed to comply with the said terms as set out in the said agreement executed by him.
-
That late Sri Chama Narsimha Reddy, husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 died on 19-4-1999 leaving the plaintiffs as his successors, and the same was to the knowledge of defendant No. 1 being his distant relative, that after the demise of Sri Chama Narsimha Reddy, the plaintiffs approached defendant No.1 on several occasions and requested him to execute sale deed by receiving the balance amount of consideration, that he ignored and evaded to do so owing to price hike in the vicinity of the suit schedule property and he also tried to alienate the suit schedule property to third parties at higher price in violation of the agreement of sale and that a legal notice dated 21-1-2000 was issued to defendant No.1 to comply with the terms of the agreement of sale, however, he issued reply notice dated 1-3-2000 admitting execution of agreement of sale and also receipt of part of sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, defendant No.1 falsely contended that the said agreement was cancelled orally, and thus he was trying to avoid the obligations arising out of the said agreement taking advantage of the death of Sri Chama Narsimha Reddy, that Sri Chama Narismha Reddy was ready and willing to perform his part under the said agreement till his last breath and after his demise, the plaintiffs are also ready and willing to perform their part of obligations in compliance with the terms of the said agreement.
-
Defendant No.1 filed in his written statement denying that late Sri Chama Narsimha Reddy had purchased the agricultural land in Survey Nos. 65 and 66 in an extent of Ac. 3-37gts. situated at Kuntloor, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from him under agreement of sale dated 2-10-1997 and that he had agreed to sell the suit schedule property to late Sri Chama Narsimha Reddy for a total sale consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Somehow, defendant No.1 had admitted in his written statement that he had executed agreement of sale dated 2-10-1997 in favour of late Sri Chama Narsimha Reddy and also received Rs. 1,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration, however, he denied that Sri Chama Narsimha Reddy was entitled to demarcate the layout in the suit schedule property and that he permitted him to do so. Defendant No.1 also denied having agreed to produce encumbrance certificate for 13 years and also to clear of taxes, cesses etc. Defendant No.1 denied other averments of the legal notice including that plaintiffs 1 to 3 approached him after the death of Sri Chama Narsimha Reddy and requested him to execute the sale deed by accepting the balance amount of sale consideration. Defendant No.1 denied having agreed to sell the property to third parties due to price hike. Defendant No. 1 alleged that after the death of Sri Chama Narsimha Reddy, he waited for a period of one year from the date of the expiry of the agreement and that having alienated the suit schedule property in favour of one K. Prabhakar Reddy of his own village, the agreement of sale was terminated.
-
Defendant No.1 stated that Sri Chama Narsimha Reddy was hospitalised and he failed to perform his part of contract by expressing his inability to pay the balance amount of sale consideration, and he orally informed defendant No.1 to cancel Ex. A.1 and gave consent to sell the suit schedule property to third parties and accordingly he had alienated the suit schedule property to third party.
-
After the demise of defendant No.1, his LRs are brought on record as defendants 2 to 5 and they have filed additional...
To continue reading
Request your trial