specific performance suit - Vs- the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Act = The appellant filed O.S.No.371 of 2011 against the 1st respondent in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 23.08.2008 in respect of the suit schedule property. The property was mortgaged by the 1st respondent with the 2nd respondent. During the pendecny of the suit, the 2ndrespondent initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Act (for short ‘the Act’) against the 1st respondent. In view of this development, the appellant filed I.A.No.1045 of 2011 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. with a prayer to restrain the 2nd respondent from proceeding against the property, including by way of sale. = It is a matter of record that the property is under mortgage to the 2nd respondent. The mere pendency of the suit cannot disable the 2nd respondent from enforcing the mortgage. At the same time, the 1st respondent cannot be permitted to defeat the rights of the appellant by permitting the property to be sold in favour of third parties. The appellant expressed his bona fides by stating that he is prepared to liquidate the loan, for which the property is offered as security. He has also made a deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- in compliance with the interim order passed by this Court.= Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The I.A. is partly allowed directing that it shall be the obligation of the 1st respondent to settle the dispute pertaining to the mortgage of the property with the 2nd respondent, in such a way, that the property is not put to sale. In case, it becomes inevitable to sell the property, it shall be open to the appellant to negotiate with the 2nd respondent within three months and clear the debt to protect the property. Such arrangement shall be without prejudice to the rights of the parties. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR


C.M.A.No.363 of 2013


JUDGMENT: (Per LNR, J)

          The appellant filed O.S.No.371 of 2011 against the 1st respondent in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 23.08.2008 in respect of the suit schedule property. The property was mortgaged by the 1st respondent with the 2nd respondent.  During the pendecny of the suit, the 2ndrespondent initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Act (for short ‘the Act’) against the 1st respondent. 
In view of this development, the appellant filed I.A.No.1045 of 2011 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. with a prayer to restrain the 2nd respondent from proceeding against the property, including by way of sale.  It was pleaded that if there exists any liability towards the 2nd respondent, the consideration for the property can be adjusted towards it and that in the process of enforcing the mortgage, his rights cannot be defeated.  The I.A. was contested by respondents 1 and 2. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through its order, dated 12.10.2011.  Hence, this appeal under Rule 1 of Order 43 C.P.C.

          Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

          The appellant bases his claim upon an agreement of sale.  The 1st respondent however has seriously disputed the very existence of such an agreement.  The question as to whether the agreement of sale, pleaded by the appellant is genuine; needs to be considered at the trial of the suit.

          It is a matter of record that the property is under mortgage to the 2nd respondent.  The mere pendency of the suit cannot disable the 2nd respondent from enforcing the mortgage.  At the same time, the 1st respondent cannot be permitted to defeat the rights of the appellant by permitting the property to be sold in favour of third parties. The appellant expressed his bona fides by stating that he is prepared to liquidate the loan, for which the property is offered as security.  He has also made a deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- in compliance with the interim order passed by this Court.

          We ascertained from the 1st respondent as to whether he is prepared to pay the mortgage debt and ensure that the property is not sold in favour of third parties.  He stated that he would liquidate the loan by himself without taking any help from the appellant.

          Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside.  
The I.A. is partly allowed directing that it shall be the obligation of the 1st respondent to settle the dispute pertaining to the mortgage of the property with the 2nd respondent, in such a way, that the property is not put to sale.  
In case, it becomes inevitable to sell the property, it shall be open to the appellant to negotiate with the 2nd respondent within three months and clear the debt to protect the property.  
Such arrangement shall be without prejudice to the rights of the parties.  The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 
          The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.


______________________

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J



_________________
K.G.SHANKAR, J

Date: 12.04.2013

JSU


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 








C.M.A.No.363 of 2013








Date: 12.04.2013

JSU



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.

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

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.