specific performance The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of Ex.A.3 agreement for sale dated 06.12.1996 said to have been executed by the defendant for Ac.6.37 ¾ guntas of land in Padamati Somaram village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District for Rs.2,02,344/-.- The defendant’s plea is one of total denial. After trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit for relief of specific performance of Ex.A.3, but directed the defendant to refund Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at 18% per annum. = When the plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands and with false averments, the plaintiff is not entitled for the discretionary and equitable relief of specific performance of Ex.A.3 agreement for sale.; Inspite of there being a question of law on the point of limitation, this second appeal is not liable to be admitted in view of factual finding on Exs.A.5 to A.10 receipts. Inspite of possibility of a positive finding in this appeal in favour of the plaintiff on the point of limitation, the plaintiff cannot be successful in obtaining decree for specific performance in view of factual finding on Exs.A.5 to A.10. Therefore, this second appeal fails and accordingly is dismissed. No substantial questions of law arise for determination in this second appeal

SA 256 / 2013SASR 15716 / 2012
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
M/S.NARNE ESTATES PVT LTD  VSALWAL BALREDDY
PET.ADV. : HARI HARANRESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT(IMMOVABLE PROPERTY)DISTRICT:  NALGONDA


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

S.A.No.256 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

   
        Unsuccessful plaintiff in both the Courts below is the appellant in this second appeal.  The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of Ex.A.3 agreement for sale dated 06.12.1996 said to have been executed by the defendant for Ac.6.37 ¾ guntas of land in Padamati Somaram village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District for Rs.2,02,344/-.  On the date of agreement, an amount of Rs.60,000/- by crossed cheque was said to have been paid.  It is the plaintiff’s further case that out of balance of sale consideration, Rs.1,55,000/- was paid to the defendant on different occasions under Exs.A.5 to A.10.  After issuing notices Exs.A.11 and A.12, the suit is laid by the plaintiff.  The defendant’s plea is one of total denial.  After trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit for relief of specific performance of Ex.A.3, but directed the defendant to refund Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at 18% per annum.  On appeal by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal.
       2. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that though Ex.A.3 suit agreement and Ex.A.4 receipt are true, Exs.A.5 to A.10 are false.  Under Ex.A.3 suit agreement, a sum of Rs.60,000/- was paid by way of crossed cheque.  
The plaintiff is stated to have paid Rs.40,000/- to the defendant under Ex.A.4 receipt by way of cash.  
Total sum of Rs.1,55,000/- was said to have been paid under Exs.A.5 to A.10 receipts by way of cash.  
Even though Chairman of the plaintiff as PW.1 stated about cash payments under those receipts, attestor therein as PW.2 stated that the amounts thereunder were paid by way of cheques.  
In view of the said basic discrepancy, the Courts below rightly disbelieved payments under Exs.A.5 to A.10 receipts. 
This is a question of fact, which this Court in this second appeal may not entertain.  When the plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands and with false averments, the plaintiff is not entitled for the discretionary and equitable relief of specific performance of Ex.A.3 agreement for sale.

       3.  Inspite of there being a question of law on the point of limitation, this second appeal is not liable to be admitted in view of factual finding on Exs.A.5 to A.10 receipts.  
Inspite of possibility of a positive finding in this appeal in favour of the plaintiff on the point of limitation, the plaintiff cannot be successful in obtaining decree for specific performance in view of factual finding on Exs.A.5 to A.10.  
Therefore, this second appeal fails and accordingly is dismissed.  No substantial questions of law arise for determination in this second appeal.

       4.  In the result, the second appeal is dismissed.


____________________________
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J
Dt.15th March, 2013

PNV

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515