APPEAL BY THIRD PARTY WHO HAS GOT INTEREST OVER THE EXPARTE DECREE IS MAINTAINABLE AND HE CAN IMPLEAD IN THE SUIT AND CONTEST THE SAME = This appeal is filed with leave by the appellant, a third party. The appellant contends that having parted with the property, the 2nd respondent colluded with the 1st respondent and that the decree under appeal was brought into existence.= whether the decree passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. = However, by the time, the suit was filed, the property stood transferred in the name of the appellant and the 2nd respondent no longer holds title. The effect of the decree is to be felt not by the 2nd respondent but by the appellant. Even from the point of view the execution of the decree, the 1st respondent cannot be successful as the things stand now. whether the agreement said to have been executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent or the one relied upon by the appellant are genuine can be considered, if only there is actual contest and trial. For that purpose, the evidence needs to be recorded and it would be possible, if only the matter is remanded to the trial Court. = Hence, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.418 of 2010 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration and disposal. The appellant shall be entitled to be impleaded as defendant No.2 in the suit.

AS 409 / 2013

ASSR 2736 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
KUMARA SWAMY  VSD. VENUGOPAL REDDY & ANOTHER
PET.ADV. : RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYIRESP.ADV. : RAJESH MADDY
SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCEDISTRICT:  HYDERABAD
PUBISHED INhttp://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=AS&mno=409&year=2013
 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
AND
 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

A.S.No.409 of 2013
JUDGMENT : (Per LNR,J)
          The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.418 of 2010 in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the 2nd respondent for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 08.02.2007. 
 It was stated that the suit schedule property was agreed to be sold in his favour for a consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.20,15,000/- was paid before the agreement and Rs.15,92,000/-, after the agreement.  The 2nd respondent remained ex parte.  
The trial Court decreed the suit on 30.05.2011 duly taking into account the deposition of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.18. 
          This appeal is filed with leave by the appellant, a third party.  
The appellant pleads that the 2nd respondent executed an agreement of sale-cum-Irrevocable G.P.A., dated 30.10.2007 in his favour, as regards the very property and that the same was registered as document No.2170 of 2007.  
He further submits that the sale deed was executed on 18.03.2011 in respect of the property.  
The appellant contends that having parted with the property, the 2nd respondent colluded with the 1st respondent and that the decree under appeal was brought into existence.
          Heard Sri Raja Gopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the appeallant and Sri Rajesh Reddy, learned counsel for the 1strespondent. 
          The 2nd respondent remained ex parte in the suit as well as before this Court.
          The 1st respondent prayed for a decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale by pleading necessary facts. The only defendant in the suit i.e., 2nd respondent herein remained ex parte.  Obviously because no written statement was filed, the trial Court did not frame any issue.  On the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.18, the suit was decreed.
          Therefore, the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the decree passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. 
          The agreement of sale relied upon by the 1st respondent is dated 08.02.2007, whereas the one pleaded by the appellant herein is dated 30.10.2007.  From the point of view of timing, the 1st respondent may stand to some advantage.  However, by the time, the suit was filed, the property stood transferred in the name of the appellant and the 2nd respondent no longer holds title. 
The effect of the decree is to be felt not by the 2nd respondent but by the appellant. 
Even from the point of view the execution of the decree, the 1st respondent cannot be successful as the things stand now.  
The question as to 
whether the agreement said to have been executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent or the one relied upon by the appellant are genuine can be considered, if only there is actual contest and trial.  
For that purpose, the evidence needs to be recorded and it would be possible, if only the matter is remanded to the trial Court. 
          The point is answered accordingly.
          Hence, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.418 of 2010 is set aside.  The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration and disposal.  
The appellant shall be entitled to be impleaded as defendant No.2 in the suit.  
The trial Court shall 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




_________________
                                                                                            S.V.BHATT, J

Date: 22.04.2013

JSU



 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
AND
 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 











A.S.(sr).No.2736 of 2013









Date: 22.04.2013
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.