w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Aravapalli Krishna Murthy v/s Syed Lal Saheb Died & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- A S KRISHNA AND CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U52300AP1946PTC000253

Company & Directors' Information:- KRISHNA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC064252

Company & Directors' Information:- S KRISHNA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25209DL1989PTC124573

Company & Directors' Information:- S. KRISHNA & COMPANY PVT LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U25191WB1989PTC046821

Company & Directors' Information:- C. LAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909HR2012PLC046499

Company & Directors' Information:- MURTHY AND MURTHY CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U70109KA1943PTC000324

Company & Directors' Information:- KRISHNA AND COMPANY LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U74999KL1943PLC000553

Company & Directors' Information:- KRISHNA CORPORATION LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1943PLC007450

Company & Directors' Information:- V KRISHNA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29190MH1989PTC050387

    Appeal Suit No. 895 of 1999

    Decided On, 21 May 2020

    At, High Court of Andhra Pradesh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

    For the Petitioner: Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, Advocate.



Judgment Text


Assailing the judgment and decree dated 19.01.1999 passed in O.S.No.106 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, whereunder the Suit filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance of contract was decreed, the present Appeal Suit is preferred by the appellant-1st defendant.

The parties will be referred to hereinafter as they are arrayed in the Suit for the sake of convenience.

Factual matrix of the Suit may briefly be stated as follows:

As per the case pleaded by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, it is their case that the 1st defendant is the owner of the plaint schedule landed property, which is in an extent of Ac.0.50 cents. He offered to sell the plaint schedule property to plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.3 to 5 for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5 accepted the said offer and agreed to purchase the said property. They have paid Rs.5,000/- towards advance sale consideration to the 1st defendant on 14.05.1982. On receipt of the said advance sale consideration of Rs.5,000/-, the 1st defendant has executed an agreement to sell dated 14.05.1982 to that effect in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property to them for Rs.40,000/-. As per the terms of the said agreement to sell, dated 14.05.1982, the balance sale consideration of Rs.35,000/- is to be paid to the 1st defendant by 13.05.1983. Time is not the essence of the contract as per the terms of the aforesaid agreement. The plaintiffs, who are ready with the balance sale consideration and willing to have the registered sale deed executed by the 1st defendant, requested the 1st defendant to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.35,000/- and execute the registered sale deed in their favour in respect of the plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant remained silent without any response.

Whileso, defendant Nos.3 to 5 have given-up their right in the said agreement to sell, dated 14.05.1982 in favour of the plaintiffs after receiving Rs.3,000/- which was paid by them along with the plaintiffs towards their share of advance sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- and on receipt of further sum of Rs.3,000/- towards profit from the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos.3 to 5 have executed an agreement dated 09.10.1984 to that effect in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 became entitled to enforce the said agreement to sell dated 14.05.1982 and have the registered sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in their favour.

As the 1st defendant, who is liable to execute to a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs after receiving the balance sale consideration from them, has been evading to execute a registered sale deed, the plaintiffs got issued a registered legal notice dated 19.03.1985 demanding the 1st defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the registered sale deed in their favour. The 1st defendant received the said notice and did not give any reply to the said notice.

However, surprisingly, the 2nd defendant issued a registered notice to the plaintiffs, after the plaintiffs got issued the aforesaid legal notice to the 1st defendant, stating that he purchased the plaint schedule property from the 1st defendant on 09.09.1982 under an agreement to sell for Rs.30,000/- and he paid the entire money and possession of the property was delivered to him. It is alleged that the said registered notice by the 2nd defendant was issued in collusion with the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant cannot claim any right in the plaint schedule property under the alleged agreement to sell dated 09.09.1982. The said agreement is not valid under law. He is laying a claim over the plaint schedule property in collusion with the 1st defendant.

As the plaintiffs are ready with the balance sale consideration and as they are willing to have the registered sale deed executed in their favour by the 1st defendant at their expense, and as the 1st defendant refused to receive the balance sale consideration from them and execute the registered sale deed in their favour in terms of the agreement to sell, dated 14.05.1982, it is alleged that the plaintiffs have filed the Suit for specific performance of the contract.

The 1st defendant at the first instance remained ex parte. He did not contest the Suit. It is only the 2nd defendant, who has filed the written statement, opposing the claim of the plaintiffs. It is his case, as per his written statement, that he purchased the plaint schedule property from the 1st defendant on 09.09.1982 under an agreement to sell dated 09.09.1982 for Rs.30,000/- and he paid the said sum of Rs.30,000/- to the 1st defendant and possession of the property was delivered to him. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any decree for specific performance of contract as claimed by them and prayed for dismissal of the Suit.

Interestingly, the 2nd defendant subsequently during the course of trial has given up his defence and also the claim in the plaint schedule property and he has filed an affidavit in the trial Court that he was set-up by the 1st defendant. Thereafter, the 1st defendant again suddenly surfaced almost in the year 1998, after lapse of 13 years of filing the Suit, and got the ex parte order passed against him set aside and he has filed his written statement resisting the Suit of the plaintiffs.

He denied execution of the agreement to sell dated 14.05.1982 in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5 and he denied that he offered to sell the said property to them as alleged in the plaint and that he received advance sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- from them.

It is his case that the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant approached him and represented that they would sell the plaint schedule property by dividing it into plots as per the Rules laid down under the A.P. Municipalities Act and that they stated that they will act as brokers for sale of the said plots. As this defendant No.1 is not well-versed with the said Rules and the procedure to apply for any such permission to the Municipality and get the layout approved and, as he is an illiterate, he agreed for the said proposal made by the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant. Therefore, they obtained the signatures of this 1st defendant on some blank papers stating that they require the same for the above purpose. Therefore, the aforesaid agreement must have been fabricated on the said papers. It is also his case that the plaintiffs informed him that he would get some notices by registered post and asked him to return the same to them and accordingly, the plaintiffs on two or three occasions got the notices served on him and took them back without even allowing him to know the contents of the said notices.

It is pleaded that the 2nd defendant also got some papers and printed forms signed by him. He finally pleaded that as he never offered to sell the plaint schedule property to plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5 and as he did not execute the Suit agreement that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of specific performance of contract and thereby prayed for dismissal of the Suit.

On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed in the trial Court at the time of settlement of issues for trial of the Suit:

“(1) Whether the agreement of sale dated 09.09.1982 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiffs?

2) Whether the suit is filed only to harass the second defendant to overcome the agreement executed by the 1st defendant in favour of third defendant?

3) Whether the agreement of sale dated 09.04.1984 is true, valid and binding on the 2nd defendant?

4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 14.05.1982?

5) To what relief?”

During the course of trial of the Suit, to substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the 2nd plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and the plaintiffs got examined PW.2 to PW.4 witnesses and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 documents. As against the said evidence, the 1st defendant was examined as DW.1 and got examined DW.2 and DW.3 witnesses and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-4 documents in support of his case.

After closure of the evidence, after hearing both the parties and considering the aforesaid evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the Suit in favour of the plaintiffs.

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, the 1st defendant has preferred the instant appeal questioning the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court.

During the pendency of the Appeal, the 1st respondent (1st plaintiff) died and his legal representatives were impleaded as respondent Nos.4 to 7. 6th respondent also died and his legal representatives were impleaded as respondent Nos.8 to 11. The 3rd respondent (2nd defendant) also died and his legal representative is added as respondent No.12. Respondent Nos.13 to 15 were impleaded as per order dated 06.07.2018 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2018.

When the appeal came up for hearing before this Court, heard Sri Srinivas Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Ghanta Rao, learned Senior Counsel, for Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5.

The points that emerge for determination in this Appeal are:

(1) Whether Ex.A.1 agreement to sell dated 14.05.1982 was executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5? And whether it is true, valid and binding on the 1st defendant?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree for specific performance of contract in terms of the agreement to sell, dated 14.05.1982?

(3) Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court are sustainable under law? And whether they warrant interference in this Appeal and whether the same are liable to be set aside?

(4) To what relief?

POINT NO.1:

Admittedly, the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule landed property, which is in an extent of Ac.0.50 cents. To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs that the 1st defendant agreed to sell the said land to them for Rs.40,000/- and executed an agreement to sell dated 14.05.1982, which is Ex.A-1, in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5 on receipt of the advance sale consideration of Rs.5,000/-, the 2nd plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and the plaintiffs also got examined the scribe of Ex.A-1 as PW.2. PW.1 categorically deposed in his evidence that the 1st defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5 for Rs.40,000/- and they accepted for the same and they paid Rs.5,000/- towards advance sale consideration and that the 1st defendant executed Ex.A-1 agreement to sell in their favour. He further stated that as per the terms of Ex.A-1 agreement, the balance sale consideration is to be paid by 13.05.1983 and even though the plaintiffs offered the balance sale consideration to the 1st defendant and requested him to execute the registered sale deed in their favour in terms of Ex.A-1 agreement to sell that he used to maintain silence and evaded execution of the registered sale deed. It is also stated that in the meanwhile defendant Nos.3 to 5 have given up their right under Ex.A-1 agreement to sell in their favour i.e. plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 after receiving Rs.3,000/- which was paid by them towards their share of advance sale consideration and further sum of Rs.3,000/- towards profit from plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and that they executed Ex.A-2 agreement dated 09.10.1984 in favour of the plaintiffs to that effect and as such, the plaintiffs alone became entitled to have the registered sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in their favour in respect of the plaint schedule property.

The said evidence of PW.1 is amply corroborated by the evidence of PW.2, who is the scribe of Ex.A-1 agreement to sell. He stated that he is a document writer and he has scribed Ex.A-1 agreement to sell. It is significant to note here that he has clearly stated that he has scribed Ex.A-1 on the instructions of the 1st defendant and that plaintiffs 1 and 2 and others are the vendees under Ex.A-1. He stated that on the date of Ex.A-1 that the plaintiffs have paid Rs.5,000/- as advance amount and it is agreed that the plaintiffs have to pay the balance sale consideration within one year and that thereafter registered sale deed is to be executed. He also stated that after preparation of Ex.A-1, he read over its contents to both the parties and they have accepted that the contents are true and correct. He further stated in clear terms that the 1st defendant has put his signature on it. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of both PW.1 and PW.2 by the 1st defendant to discredit their testimony given regarding execution of Ex.A-1 agreement to sell by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5. Therefore, their evidence is reliable and trustworthy. So, there is no valid reason to disbelieve their testimony. Particularly, PW.2, who is a licensed scribe, is an independent witness. No enmity is suggested by the 1st defendant with him to this PW.2. Therefore, he has absolutely no reason to give any false evidence against the 1st defendant. So, the evidence of PW.2 clinchingly proves that the 1st defendant has executed Ex.A-1 agreement to sell and he has signed it with full knowledge of the contents of Ex.A.1.

It is relevant to note that the 1st defendant did not deny or dispute his signatures on Ex.A-1 agreement to sell. It is his case, as per his pleadings in the written statement, that the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant approached him and represented that they would lay plots in the plaint schedule property and sell the same acting as brokers and that in the said process that they have obtained his signatures on some blank papers stating that they require his signatures to apply to the Municipality for necessary approvals and as such he has signed on some blank papers and gave the same to the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant. He also testified to the same facts in his evidence as DW.1. Except making a bald assertion to that effect that he has signed on some blank papers on the aforesaid representation said to have been made by the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant, he did not adduce any acceptable legal evidence to that effect and he has miserably failed to substantiate the said contention. On the other hand, the said plea of the 1st defendant that he has only signed on blank papers and he did not execute any agreement to sell under Ex.A-1, is now proved to be false from the evidence of the scribe, who is examined as PW.2, who clearly stated that on the instructions of the 1st defendant that he has scribed Ex.A-1 and that the 1st defendant signed the said agreement after knowing the contents of the said agreement.

Further, it is relevant to note here that Ex.A-1 was executed on a stamp paper. The 1st defendant only pleaded in the written statement that he has signed on some blank papers. He did not plead that he has signed on any blank stamp papers. Probably as he is fully conscious of the fact that he has signed Ex.A-1 which was drafted on stamp paper, he did not make any venture to plead that he has signed on any blank stamp papers. Ex.A-1 was executed on two stamp papers. In the first page, his signature is available at the bottom of the said page after the contents are written on it and in the second page, 3/4th paper contained the contents and beneath the said contents, his signature is appearing. Thereafter, the signatures of the attestors and the scribe on the second page are visible. So, a close scrutiny of Ex.A-1 shows that as per the apparent tenor in which the said document is appearing, the contention of the 1st defendant that his signatures are obtained on blank papers is not believable. It clearly shows that the agreement was drafted on the said two stamp papers and that he has signed on the first page and second page of the said document. Therefore, considering the said circumstances, coupled with the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, it can safely be concluded that the 1st defendant has executed Ex.A-1 agreement to sell consciously with full knowledge of its contents and signed on it. So, it cannot be said under any stretch of reasoning or even imagination that Ex.A-1 was fabricated by the plaintiffs on blank signed papers said to have been obtained from him in the manner stated by him in his pleadings and evidence. The said plea of the 1st defendant in his written statement is obviously a concocted story and a result of afterthought.

It is in the evidence of DW.1 that the 1st defendant knows Telugu language and he is in the habit of preparing his own accounts. So, it is not as though that he is an illiterate as pleaded by him. So, it cannot be said that he has signed on blank papers on the alleged representations said to have been made by the plaintiffs. In this context, it is relevant to note that the plaintiffs got issued a registered legal notice which is Ex.A3 to the 1st defendant before filing the Suit. Admittedly, he received the said notice. He did not give any reply to the said notice denying the contents of Ex.A-3 notice and stating that he did not execute any such Ex.A-1 agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5. Therefore, this circumstance of the 1st defendant remaining silent without giving any reply to Ex.A-3 notice denying the execution of Ex.A-1 agreement to sell shows that as the transaction is true, he did not choose to give any reply to the Ex.A-3 legal notice. His conduct in remaining silent after receiving Ex.A-3 leads to take an inference that as he has admitted the contents therein that he did not give reply to the said notice. Though he pleaded in his written statement that the plaintiffs took return of the notices from him, there is no evidence on record adduced by him to substantiate the said plea.

Now, it is relevant to note here that surprisingly after Ex.A-3 notice was given by the plaintiffs to the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant suddenly came into the picture, and he issued a notice to the plaintiffs stating that he purchased the plaint schedule property from the 1st defendant under an agreement of sale dated 09.09.1982 for Rs.30,000/- and possession of the said property was delivered to him.

Apart from it, another strong circumstance which is required to be noticed is that after filing the Suit, the 1st defendant did not respond to the Ex.A-3 legal notice issued by the plaintiffs. Further, at the first instance, the 1st defendant remained ex parte and he did not contest the Suit. It is only the 2nd defendant who has filed the written statement and contested the Suit stating that he purchased the said property from the 1st defendant under an agreement to sell dated 09.09.1982. However, this 2nd defendant after the trial commenced, in the year 1998, has given up his contest and he has filed an affidavit in the trial Court stating that he was set-up by the 1st defendant. Thereafter, the 1st defendant again suddenly came on to the record after getting the ex parte order set aside after 13 years and he has filed his written statement with the above pleas. Therefore, the said conduct of the 1st defendant clearly shows that he is not fair since the inception of the transaction and at the first instance without giving reply to the Ex.A-3 legal notice issued by the plaintiffs, he has set-up the 2nd defendant and got issued Ex.A-4 notice to PW.1. Thereafter, he got the Suit contested by the 2nd defendant. After the 2nd defendant has given up his contest, he came on to the record and opposed the claim of the plaintiffs by filing the written statement with untenable pleas. Therefore, the said conduct of the 1st defendant which is most unfair would certainly have its adverse impact on the plea taken by him to oppose the claim of the plaintiffs that his signatures are obtained on some blank papers by them with the representation that they require the same to apply for approvals of the Municipality. It is undoubtedly a concocted story setup by the 1st defendant to defeat the clam of the plaintiffs which is in fact a genuine one under Ex.A-1 agreement to sell executed by the 1st defendant in their favour. It is obvious that he has created the said false story to overcome Ex.A-1 agreement to sell executed by him and to wriggle out from his liability to execute registered sale deed in terms of Ex.A-1 agreement to sell.

Ex.A-1 agreement to sell is not a document required by law to be attested. So, it is not a compulsorily attestable document. So, the mandate of Section 68 of the Evidence Act of examining one of the attestors is not applicable to Ex.A-1. Therefore, it can be proved even without examining the attestors of the said document. Section 72 of the Evidence Act makes the said legal position very clear and it reads as follows:

“An attested document not required by law to be attested may be proved as if it was unattested.”

Therefore, in view of Section 72 of the Evidence Act even if a document which is not required by law to be attested was in fact attested by the witnesses, it can be proved by other evidence also as if the said document was unattested. In the instant case, the plaintiffs have examined the scribe of the said document as PW.2 and as discussed supra he has clearly stated in his evidence that at the instance of the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs that he has scribed Ex.A-1 agreement to sell and that the 1st defendant also signed Ex.A-1 document. He also spoke to the contents of Ex.A.1-agreement of sale. Therefore, Ex.A-1-agreemnt of sale stands proved as per law in this case.

Although, the 1st defendant has also stated in his evidence that originally one Somireddy family who are the original owners of the plaint schedule property along with the other property sold the same to plaintiffs under an agreement to sell and the plaintiffs in turn sold their interest to the 1st defendant and got the registered sale deed executed by Somireddy people in favour of the 1st defendant, these facts, even if true, will not in any way affect the claim of the plaintiffs in any manner. It is significant to note that the evidence on record proves that as on date of Ex.A-1 agreement to sell, the 1st defendant is the owner of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, he is competent to execute Ex.A-1 agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5. So, it is a valid agreement and binding on the 1st defendant. The point is, therefore, answered affirmatively in favour of the plaintiffs and against the 1st defendant.

POINT No.2:-

Though Ex.A-1 agreement to sell was executed in favour of the two plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5 by the 1st defendant, it is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant Nos.3 to 5 have given up their right under Ex.A-1 agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs under Ex.A-2 agreement. It is their case that the advance sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid by the two plaintiffs and three defendants i.e. defendant Nos.3 to 5 at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each by five of them to the 1st defendant and as such, the plaintiffs have paid the said Rs.3,000/- to defendant Nos.3 to 5 and in addition to that they have paid Rs.3,000/- towards their profit and on receiving the same, they executed Ex.A-2 agreement. These facts are not denied by defendant Nos.3 to 5. So, it establishes that defendant Nos.3 to 5 have given up their right under Ex.A-1 in favour of the plaintiffs under Ex.A-2. So, the plaintiffs alone became entitled under Ex.A-1 to have registered sale deed from the 1st defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property.

The pleadings in the plaint as well as the evidence of PW.1 show that the plaintiffs have always been ready and willing to perform their part of contract as it is their case that they have been offering the balance sale consideration of Rs.35,000/- to the 1st defendant and requesting him to execute the registered sale deed and he used to remain silent and evade execution of the registered sale deed. These facts are established from the evidence of PW.1. Even to prove their bona fides, the plaintiffs got issued Ex.A-3 legal notice to the 1st defendant. He received the same and did not respond to it. Therefore, it is evident that the plaintiffs are always ready and willing to perform their part of contract and to pay the balance sale consideration and have the registered sale deed in their favour. It is on account of the evasive conduct being exhibited by the 1st defendant at all stages right from the inception till the trial of the Suit, that the registered sale deed could not be obtained by the plaintiffs from him. So, it is evident that the 1st defendant is evading the execution of the registered sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration offered by the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant is bound under law to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in terms of Ex.A-1 agreement to sell. He has deliberately committed breach of contract under Ex.A-1. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of specific performance of contract in terms of Ex.A-1 agreement to sell. Hence, this point is affirmatively answered in favour of the respondentsplaintiffs and against the appellant-1st defendant.

The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant are all distinguishable on facts and they are not applicable to the present facts of the case. The judgment in the case of Manohar lal @ Manohar Singh v. Maya (2003) 9 SCC 478)wherein it is held that the plea of the defendant that the plaintiff had obtained her thumb impression on some plain paper could not be out rightly rejected, is not applicable to the present facts of the case as in this case the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, the conduct of the 1st defendant right from the inception till the trial of the Suit, and other broad probabilities of the case clearly proved that the plea of the 1stdefendant that his signatures are obtained on blank papers is absolutely false and as the 1st defendant also failed to substantiate the same.

The other judgment in the case of K.Nanjappa v. R. A. Hameed (2016) 1 SCC 762)relied on by the appellant on the proposition that the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove that there was existence of consensus ad idem between parties for concluded and binding agreement for the sale of immovable property is concerned, in the instant case, the evidence on record, as discussed supra, clinchingly proved that there was a concluded contract between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant under Ex.A-1 agreement to sell which is found to be true and valid and binding on the 1st defendant. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment is not of any avail to the case of the appellant.

As regards the judgment in the case of Mohammadia Coop. Building Society Ltd. v. Lakshmi Srinivasa Coop. Building Society Ltd. (2008) 7 SCC 310)that the plaintiff must approach the Court with clean hands to claim the equitable relief of specific performance of contract, there is nothing to indicate from the evidence on record that the plaintiffs are guilty of approaching the court with unclean hands to claim the said equitable relief of specific performance of contract. On the other hand, the evidence and the probabilities of the case proved that it is the 1st defendant who has approached the Court with unclean hands right from the inception by falsely setting up the 2nd defendant with a false claim and then coming forward with a false plea. So, this judgment has also no application to the present facts of the case.

The judgment in the case of Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 7 SCC 605)wherein ‘fraud’ is defined also not applicable to the present facts of the case, as there is no fraud played by the plaintiffs in this case.

The other two judgments in the cases of Manjunath Anandappa v.Tammanasa (2003) 10 SCC 390)and N.P. Thirugnanam v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao (1995) 5 SCC 315)relate to showing readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs to perform their part of contract to claim the relief of specific performance of contract. After considering the evidence on record and facts of the case, as per the findings recorded supra, this Court as well as the trial Court found that the plaintiffs have always been ready and willing to perform their part of contract from the inception and it is the 1st defendant who is evading to perform the contract. Therefore, these two judgments relied on by the 1st defendant are also of no avail to the 1st defendant.

The appellant then relied on the judgment in the case of K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan (1997) 3 SCC 1)wherein it is held that even though the time is not the essence of the contract and Suit can be filed within three years under Section 54 of the Limitation Act, that the plaintiffs should perform their part of contract within a reasonable time in terms of the agreement to sell. In the case on hand, the plaintiffs have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, and it is on account of the conduct of the 1st defendant who is evading to perform his part of contract that

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

a short delay, if any, took place. So, it will not defeat the claim of the plaintiffs. The last judgment relied on by the appellant in the case of Ganesh Shet v. Dr. C.S.G.K. Setty (1998) 5 SCC 381)is totally inapplicable to the present facts of the case. On the other hand, the judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs are relevant in the context to consider, which are applicable to the present facts of the case. In the judgment of the Division Bench of A.P. High Court in the case of Veeramareddy Nagabhushana Rao v. Jyothula Venkateswara Rao (2011 (2) ALD 629 (DB)it is held that when the allegation is that the Suit agreement of sale is fabricated and the defendant fails to prove the same, granting equitable relief of specific performance in favour of the plaintiffs is justifiable, is applicable to the present facts of the case. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mademsetty Satyanarayana v. G. Yelloji Rao (AIR 1965 SC 1405)wherein it is held that delay in filing the Suit should not disentitle grant of relief of specific performance of contract is also relevant in the context to consider in favour of the plaintiffs. In the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Jain v. Smt. Ramdasi Devi (AIR 2000 SC 2408)it is held that an averment of readiness and willingness in the plaint is not a mathematical formula which should only be in specific words. If the averments in the plaint as a whole clearly indicate the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to fulfill his part of the obligations under the contract which is subject matter of the Suit, the fact that they are differently worded will not militate against the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in a suit of specific performance of contract for sale, is aptly applicable to the present facts of the case. Finally, the judgment in the case of Narinderjit Singh v. North Star Estate Promoters Ltd. (2012) 5 SCC 712)it is held that when the plaintiffs succeeded in proving the execution of agreement of sale and their readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract, the Suit is to be decreed, is also applicable to the facts of the present case in favour of the plaintiffs. POINT No.3:- The trial Court after considering the evidence on record and on proper appreciation of the same arrived at a right conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of contract under Ex.A-1 agreement to sell. Upon reappraisal of the said evidence on record and considering the preponderance of probabilities of the case, this Court also found that the finding of fact arrived at by the trial Court that the 1st defendant executed Ex.A-1 agreement to sell agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs is true, valid and binding on the 1st defendant is correct. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court are perfectly sustainable under law and they warrant no interference in this Appeal. Hence, the point is answered accordingly. So, the appeal lacks merit and it fails. POINT No.4:- In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed with costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall also stand closed.
O R