P. Subbarayudu vs Smt. K. Padmavathi

APHC010035442007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [ 3397 ] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

FIRST APPEAL NO: 49 OF 2007

Between: P. Subbarayudu ...APPELLANT(S) AND Smt K.Padmavathi ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. 3063/N SUBBA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(s): 804/P GANGA RAMI REDDY

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

-

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure

[for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging

the Decree and Judgment, dated 12.07.2005, in O.S. No.36 of 2002

passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur [for short 'the trial

Court']. The Respondent herein is the defendant in the said Suit.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a Suit, with a prayer, to direct the

defendant to execute registered sale deed in respect of plaint 2 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

schedule property by receiving balance of sale consideration and

deliver possession of plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within

the time stipulated by this Court and in case of default through

process of law, further prayed alternatively to direct the defendant to

return Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest @ 24% p.a. from

08.05.2002 till the date of payment, in case the Court feels that the

plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for specific performance of

agreement of sale.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are

arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.36 of 2002, are as under:

The defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule

property i.e., 32 ankanams out of 180 ankanams of site within

specified boundaries with 15 ankanams of terraced building therein

bearing door No.B-10-352 having purchased the same under

registered sale deed dated 26.03.1985. The defendant offered to

sell an extent of 32 ankanams out of 180 ankanams of site and the

plaintiff agreed to purchase the same for consideration of 3 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

Rs.5,50,000/- and paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant on

08.05.2002, who in turn executed an agreement of sale on the same

day in favour of the plaintiff. As per the terms of the said agreement,

the plaintiff should pay balance of sale consideration on or before

25.07.2002 and obtain regular sale deed from the defendant with his

own expenses. The said agreement was attested by the sons of

defendant.

ii) As the time was the essence of contract, the plaintiff had been

demanding the defendant to perform her part of contract i.e., to

receive balance of sale consideration and execute registered sale

deed in his favaour, that the defendant had been evading to do so,

hence the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 23.07.2002 calling

upon the defendant to perform her part of contract and the same

was received by the defendant's son, on her behalf, but no reply

was sent nor complied the demand. Further, the defendant got

issued notice through others to her and also to the plaintiff as if the

defendant is indebted to others and calling upon the plaintiff not to

purchase the said property. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to

file the suit.

4 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

5. The defendant filed written statement by denying all the

averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: -

The husband of the defendant i.e., Kagitha Anandarao

purchased 180 ankanams of site @ Rs.250/- per ankanam under

registered sale deed dated 26.03.1985. The sale deed was taken for

Rs.36,000/- in her name. Subsequently her husband constructed

terraced building in an extent of 15 ankanams about 8 years ago by

investing Rs.5,00,000/- with the income derived from the saw mill

and his savings. Anticipating the conduct of their sons, her husband

purchased site and constructed the building in the plaint schedule

property in her name.

ii) Her elder son by name Syamasundar obtained loan from

Syndicate Bank, Buchireddipalem. As the bank people pressed to

discharge the said loan, the said Syamasundar obtained her

signatures on 2 empty stamped papers by misrepresentation that

her signatures were required as surety. The plaintiff fabricated the

agreement with the said stamp papers, containing her signatures, by

paying some amount to Syamasundar, who in turn, utilized it to

discharge debt due to the bank. She neither received Rs.1,00,000/-

5 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

from the plaintiff nor executed agreement of sale in favour of the

plaintiff. No notice was given to her as alleged in the plaint and

prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract as prayed for?

(ii) Whether the agreement of sale dated 08.05.2002 is fabricated?

7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the

Plaintiff, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were

marked. On behalf of the Defendant DW1 and DW2 were examined,

no documents were marked, but proposed in additional affidavit of

defendant to mark Ch.No.98, dated 11.11.2004 for Rs.1,00,000/-.

8. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of

both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment, dated

12.07.2005 and directed the defendant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the

plaintiff together with interest @18% p.a. and dismissed the suit with

regard to the relief of specific performance of Ex.A1 agreement of 6 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

sale, against which the present appeal is preferred by the

appellant/plaintiff in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment

passed by the trial Court.

9. Heard Sri N.Subbarao, learned senior counsel for the

appellant and Sri P.Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the

respondent.

10. Leaned senior counsel on behalf of appellant would contend

that the learned trial Judge erred in rejecting the main relief of

specific performance of agreement of sale. He would further

contend that the trial Judge committed an error in disbelieving the

Ex.A2 legal notice and Ex.A3 acknowledgment without assigning

any cogent reasons. He would further contend that the trial judge

came to wrong conclusion that Ex.A1 was executed without any

intention to perform the terms of the contract incorporated therein,

but only as a security in connection with money transaction in

between the plaintiff and defendant as on the date of Ex.A1. He

would further contend that appeal may be allowed by granting the

main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated

08.05.2002.

7 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent would contend

that on appreciation of the entire material on record, the trial Judge

rightly rejected the main relief of specific performance of agreement

of sale dated 08.05.2002 and granted alternative relief of refund of

advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff in the suit

proceedings. He would further contend that appeal may be

dismissed.

12. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings

recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and

submissions made on either side before this Court, the following

points would arise for determination:

1. Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled the main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 08.05.2002?

2. Whether the trial Court committed any error in granting alternative relief of refund of advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff instead of granting main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 08.05.2002?

8 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

3. Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference, if so, to what extent?

13. Point Nos.1 and 2:

1. Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled the main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 08.05.2002?

2. Whether the trial Court committed any error in granting alternative relief of refund of advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff instead of granting main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 08.05.2002?

The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is the absolute

owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same

under a registered sale deed dated 26.03.1985 and the defendant

offered to sell an extent of 32 Ankanams out of 180 ankanams of

site, detailed in the schedule, and the plaintiff agreed to purchase

the same for a consideration of Rs.5,50,000/- and the plaintiff herein

paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant on the date of agreement of

sale itself and the defendant herein executed an agreement of sale

on the same date in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further 9 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

pleaded that as per the terms of said agreement, the plaintiff has to

pay the balance sale consideration on or before 25.07.2002 and

obtained regular sale deed from the defendant with his own

expenses.

14. The defense taken by the defendant in the written statement is

that the elder son of the defendant by name Syamasundar obtained

loan from the Syndicate Bank, Buchireddipalem, as the bank people

pressed for discharging the loan, Syamasundar misrepresented the

defendant and obtained the signatures of the defendant, as required

as security, on two empty stamp papers. The defendant further

pleaded that the plaintiff fabricated the said agreement on the

stamps papers containing her signatures by paying some amount to

the son of the defendant by name Syamasundar, who discharged

his bank debt. She further pleaded that she never received

Rs.1,00,000/- nor executed agreement of sale in favour of the

plaintiff.

15. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the trial

Judge held in its judgment that the defendant herself executed

Ex.A1 agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and received 10 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under Ex.A1 agreement of sale.

The trial Court further held that the agreement of sale is not a

fabricated one and it was executed by the defendant herself. The

same is held in para No.28 of the judgment by the trial Court. The

said finding is not at all challenged by the defendant by way of filing

cross objections or by way of filing appeal. Therefore, now the point

to be decided in the appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled the

main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated

08.05.2002.

16. The suit is filed based on Ex.A1 agreement of sale dated

08.05.2002. Ex.A1 recitals goes to show the defendant offered to

sell the plaint schedule property for Rs.5,50,000/- from out of which

an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid on the date of

agreement of sale, there was a condition in Ex.A1 that the remaining

balance of sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- has to pay on or

before 25.07.2002. There is no condition in Ex.A1 agreement of sale

that if the remaining balance sale consideration was not paid by

25.07.2002, the advance amount will be forfeited and the agreement

will stand cancelled. The contention of the plaintiff is that the time is 11 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

an essence of contract and has been constantly demanding the

defendant to perform her part of the contract to receive balance sale

consideration to execute a registered sale deed in his favour, but the

defendant has been avoiding to do so.

17. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra. The

law is well settled that, grant of decree of specific performance of

agreement of sale is not an automatic and it is a discretionary relief,

the same is required to be exercised judiciously, sound and

reasonable. As stated supra Ex.A1 is a crucial document, based on

which the suit is filed. Though the execution of Ex.A1 agreement of

sale in favour of the plaintiff is disputed by the defendant, but on

appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the trial Judge came

to conclusion that Ex.A1 is genuine document and the same is not

fabricated document and the trial Judge further hold that after

obtaining Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration from

the plaintiff, the defendant executed Ex.A1 agreement of sale. The

said finding is not at all challenged by the defendant by filing cross

objections. Therefore, the same is attained finality.

12 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

18. The defendant pleaded in the written statement that the elder

son of the defendant by name Syamasundar obtained loan from

Syndicate Bank, Buchireddipalem and as the bank people got

pressure him to discharge the loan and Syamasundar

misrepresenting the defendant that the signatures of the defendant

is required as a surety and obtained signatures of the defendant on

two empty stamp papers. The defendant further pleaded that neither

she received Rs.1,00,000/- nor executed agreement of sale dated

08.05.2002 in favour of the plaintiff. As stated supra, on appreciation

of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge came to

conclusion that Ex.A1 is a genuine document and it is not a

fabricated document.

19. The time stipulated to perform the contract of both the parties

in Ex.A1 is fixed by 25.07.2002. The case of the plaintiff is that he is

constantly demanding the defendant to receive the balance sale

consideration and to execute a regular registered sale deed in favor

of the plaintiff but the defendant is not at all cooperating for

executing the registered sale deed. Ex.A2 goes to show that the

plaintiff issued a legal notice on 23.07.2002 through his counsel 13 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

through courier service by demanding the defendant to execute a

regular registered sale deed and to receive the remaining balance

sale consideration. Ex.A3 goes to show the same is received by the

son of the defendant by name Anil on 28.07.2002, the defendant

admits that the said Anil is her third son. The learned counsel for

defendant would contend that the said notice was not served on the

defendant and it was sent to Nellore address. Per contra, the

learned counsel for plaintiff would contend that the head office of

courier service is situated at Nellore, the place of destiny is in

Nellore District. It does not mean that the Ex.A2 notice is not at all

served on the defendant. In cross examination, it was not suggested

to PW1 that the signature on Ex.A3 is not belongs to the son of

defendant by name Anil. In cross examination, it was not suggested

to plaintiff by the learned counsel for defendant that the Ex.A2 notice

is not at all received by the defendant. In evidence in cross

examination the defendant admits that she is having 3 sons and all

her 3 sons are residing with her. It is not the case of the defendant

that she is having enmity with her 3 sons including Anil. According to

the defendant herself, all her sons are staying under one roof,

therefore, I am of the considered view that Ex.A2 notice was 14 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

received by the son of the defendant and she is having knowledge

of Ex.A2 contents of notice. Therefore, the service of Ex.A2 notice

on the defendant is held sufficient. It is an admitted fact that no reply

notice was given by the defendant to deny the contents of Ex.A2

legal notice, according to the defendant she is having cordial terms

with her son Anil and they are staying under one roof. If the

defendant did not really receive the Ex.A2 notice what prevented the

defendant to examine her son as a witness on her behalf, who is

staying with her under one roof.

20. PW2 is the scribe of Ex.A1 agreement of sale. PW3 and PW4

are the third parties to the suit transaction. The learned counsel for

defendant would contend that the defendant never executed Ex.A1

agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and her elder son

Syamasundar obtained her signatures on 2 empty stamp papers as

a surety to discharge the bank loan. It seems that the signature on

Ex.A1 agreement of sale is not at all disputed by the defendant, to

prove the said defense, the defendant did not try to examine the

said Syamasundar as a witness and no evidence is adduced by the

defendant to show that her son Syamasundar was obtained her 15 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

signatures on 2 empty stamp papers and by using the same,

created the Ex.A1 agreement of sale.

21. The learned counsel for defendant would contend that except

the evidence of plaintiff, no evidence is adduced by the plaintiff to

show that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

22. In a case of Kurella Venkata Satyavathi vs. Kanyamayini

Devendar Yadav 1 the Division Bench of composite High Court of

Andhra Pradesh held as follows:

The next crucial question that falls for consideration is whether a party to a document is entitled to adduce oral evidence contrary to its recitals. The underlying object of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act is that the admission of oral evidence would defeat the very object of reducing the agreement to a written form. Section 92 of the Act postulates that the parties to the instrument are precluded from adducing oral evidence to contradict, vary, add to or subtract from the terms of a valid written instrument. However, the party to a document is entitled to adduce oral evidence under which circumstances he was compelled to execute the same. Thus, the plaintiff is precluded to adduce oral evidence contrary to the recitals of the sale deed in question in view of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.

1 MANU/AP/0516/2014 16 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

In the case on hand, the execution of Ex.A1 is proved by the

plaintiff. The trial Judge also by giving cogent reasons held in its

judgment that Ex.A1 is not a fabricated document and Ex.A1 is

executed by the defendant after receiving Rs.1,00,000/- towards

advance amount from the plaintiff. The defendant failed to adduce

any evidence to show that her son obtained her signatures on the

empty stamp papers and the same is fabricated as Ex.A1.

23. The learned counsel for defendant placed a reliance in

Padmakumari and others vs. Dasayyan and others2. The learned

counsel for defendant place another reliance in Saradamani

Kandappan vs. S.Rajalakshmi and others3, in that decision it was

held as under:

(i) The Courts, while exercising discretion in suits for specific performance, should bear in mind that when the parties prescribe a time/period, for taking certain steps or for completion of the transaction, that must have some significance and therefore time/period prescribed cannot be ignored.

(ii) The Courts will apply greater scrutiny and strictness when considering whether the purchaser was 'ready and willing' to perform his part of the contract.

2 (2015) 8 SCC 695 3 (2011) 12 SCC 18 17 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

(iii) Every suit for specific performance need not be decreed merely because it is filed within the period of limitation by ignoring the time-

limits stipulated in the agreement. Courts will also 'frown' upon suits which are not filed immediately after the breach/refusal. The fact that limitation is three years does not mean a purchaser can wait for 1 or 2 years to file a suit and obtain specific performance. The three-year period is intended to assist purchasers in special cases, as for example, where the major part of the consideration has been paid to the vendor and possession has been delivered in part performance, where equity shifts in favour of the purchaser.

24. The learned counsel for respondent placed another reliance in

Smt Chand Rani vs. Smt Kamal Rani4, in that decision it was held

as under:

In the case of sale of immovable property there is no presumption as to time being the essence of the contract. Even if it is not of the essence of the contract the Court may infer that it is to be performed in a reasonable time if the conditions are:

1. from the express terms of the contract;

2. from the nature of the property; and

3. from the surrounding circumstances, for example: the object of making the contract.

4 AIR 1993 SC 1742 18 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

25. The learned counsel for respondent placed another reliance in

U.N.Krishnamurthy vs. A.M.Krishnamurthy 5 , in that decision it

was held as follows:

It is well settled that, in a suit for specific performance of an agreement, it is for the plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the agreement. Where a certain amount has been paid in advance and the balance is required to be paid within a stipulated time, it is for the plaintiff to show that he was in a position to pay the balance money. The plaintiff has to prove that he has the money or has alternatively made necessary arrangements to get the money.

In the case on hand, the date of agreement of sale is

08.05.2002, on the date of Ex.A1 agreement of sale itself, an

amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant

from out of Rs.5,50,000/- and it was agreed that the plaintiff has to

pay the remaining balance sale consideration on or before

25.07.2002. The case of the plaintiff is that he is constantly

demanding the defendant to receive the remaining balance sale

consideration, but she is not cooperating for registration. Ex.A2 goes

to show that the plaintiff demanded the defendant by issuing Ex.A2

legal notice within a stipulated time i.e., on 23.07.2002 by informing

5 AIR 2022 SCC 3361 19 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

the defendant that he is ready with balance sale consideration and

requested the defendant to receive the same and to execute a

regular registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A3 goes to

show that the said notice was received by the son of the defendant.

As stated supra, the said service of notice on the defendant is held

sufficient and the defendant is having knowledge of contents of

Ex.A2 because her son and herself are staying under one roof and

she is not having any enmity with her son. It is an admitted fact that

no reply notice was given by the defendant to deny the contents of

Ex.A2 legal notice. As a last resort, the plaintiff approached the

Court and filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale

on 30.09.2002 within 2 months from the date of receipt of Ex.A2

legal notice by the defendant. As stated supra, the date of

agreement of sale is 08.05.2002, within 6 months from the date of

Ex.A1 agreement of sale, the present suit for specific performance

of agreement of sale is filed by the plaintiff. To show the bonafidees

of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed an affidavit in I.A.No.223 of 2002 in

the suit proceedings before the trial Court. In the said affidavit it was

stated that a sum of Rs.4,50,585/- is lying in his S.B.Account

bearing No.0SB/SIB/14 and the original pass book issued by State 20 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

Bank of Hyderabad is also enclosed along with the affidavit. In the

said affidavit it was further recited by the plaintiff that the certificate

to that effect was issued by the Branch Manager of the said bank

which is enclosed along with his affidavit. The contents of the said

affidavit clearly goes to show the readiness of the plaintiff to pay the

balance sale consideration and to obtain a regular registered sale

deed from the defendant. Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 relates to some other

transactions. Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 goes to show in the said sale

transactions, the defendant signed as a vendor, her sons signed as

an attestors. In Ex.A1 agreement of sale also both the attestors are

none other than the sons of the defendant.

26. It is well settled that in a suit for specific performance of

agreement of sale, it is for the plaintiff to prove his readiness and

willingness to perform his obligation under the agreement. Where

certain amount has been paid in advance and the balance is

required to be paid within a stipulated time, it is for the plaintiff to

show that he was in a position to pay the balance money. The

plaintiff has to prove that he has the money or as alternatively made

necessary arrangements to get the money. In the case on hand, as 21 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

stated supra, within 6 months from the date of Ex.A1 agreement of

sale, the present suit for specific performance is filed by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff also issued a legal notice on 23.07.2002 within a

stipulated time fixed by both the parties by demanding the defendant

to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute a regular

registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. No reply notice was

issued by the defendant to deny the said contents of Ex.A1 legal

notice. In the case on hand, the plaintiff expressed his readiness

and willingness to perform his part of the contract i.e., to pay the

balance sale consideration and insisted the defendant after

receiving the same to execute a regular registered sale deed.

27. It is a well-accepted principle that in a case of sale of

immovable property, time is never regarded as the essence of the

contract. Relying upon the earlier decisions of the Apex Court in

Gomathinayagam Pillai vs. Palaniswami Nadar 6 and Govind

Prasad Chaturvedi vs. Hari Dutt Shastri 7, the Apex Court held

that fixation of the period within which the contract has to be

performed does not made the stipulation as to time is the essence of

6 AIR 1967 SC 868 7 (1977) 2 SCC 539 22 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

the contract. Where the contract relates to sale of immovable

property, it will normally be presumed that the time is not the

essence of the contract.

28. In the case on hand, the material on record amply proves that

the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the

contract and to prove his bonafides the plaintiff issued a legal notice

on 23.07.2002 within a stipulated time fixed by both the parties,

having received the said notice, the defendant failed to issue any

reply. The material on record reveals that from the beginning itself

the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the

contract, but the defendant failed to cooperate with the plaintiff to

receive the balance sale consideration and to execute a regular

registered sale deed in favor of the plaintiff. Therefore, undoubtedly

the plaintiff is entitled the main relief of specific performance of

agreement of sale dated 08.05.2002 as prayed in the plaint, but the

trial Judge instead of granting main relief of specific performance of

agreement of sale, granted alternative relief of refund of advance

amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff, the same is not sustainable

under law, therefore, the decree and judgment passed by the trial 23 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

Court is modified as the suit is decreed with costs by granting relief

of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 08.05.2002 and

the plaintiff is directed to pay the remaining balance sale

consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- within two months from the date of

this judgment to the defendant, if the defendant refused to receive

the same, the plaintiff is directed to deposit the same before the trial

Court, the defendant is directed to execute a registered sale deed in

favour of the plaintiff within one month from the date of receipt of

remaining balance sale consideration or from the date of deposit by

the plaintiff as the case may be, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty

to take necessary steps as per law. Defendant is at liberty to take

back the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was deposited before the

trial Court. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

29. Point No.3:

Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference, if so, to what extent?

In view of my findings in point Nos.1 and 2, the trial Court

committed a grave error in dismissing the suit with regard to the

relief of specific performance of Ex.A1 agreement of sale and 24 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

decreeing the suit directing the defendant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to

the plaintiff together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% p.a.

from the date of Ex.A1 agreement of sale till the date of decree,

therefore, the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is not

sustainable under law and the same is liable to be modified.

Accordingly this point is answered.

30. In the result, this appeal is allowed by modifying the decree

and judgment passed by the trial court as the suit is decreed with

costs by granting relief of specific performance of agreement of sale

dated 08.05.2002 and the plaintiff is directed to pay the remaining

balance sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- within two months from

the date of this judgment to the defendant, if the defendant refused

to receive the same, the plaintiff is directed to deposit the same

before the trial Court, the defendant is directed to execute a

registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within one month from

the date of receipt of remaining balance sale consideration or from

the date of deposit by the plaintiff as the case may be, failing which

the plaintiff is at liberty to take necessary steps as per law.

Defendant is at liberty to take back the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

25 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

which was deposited before the trial Court. Considering the

circumstances of the case, I order that each party do bear their own

costs in the appeal.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.

_________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Date: 28.02.2024 sj 26 VGKRJ AS 49 of 2007

7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

APPEAL SUIT No.49 OF 2007

Date: 28.02.2024

sj