Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1194 (AP)

Vallepu Ankamma v. Pallapu Kondaiah

2013-12-19

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2013
Judgment : The appellant herein filed O.S.No.72 of 2004 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, against the respondents, for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 03.04.2001. It was pleaded that the respondents approached the appellant, with a proposal to sell an extent of Ac.1.00 of agricultural land, for a consideration of Rs.55,860/-, and on 03.04.2001, an agreement of sale (Ex.A.1) was executed, by advancing a sum of Rs.51,400/-. According to him, though the balance of consideration of Rs.4,400/- was to be paid by the end of April, 2001 and the sale deed was to be executed, the respondents did not evince any interest, inspite of repeated demands. It is stated that left with no alternative, the appellant got issued a notice, dated 26.03.2004 (Ex.A.5), and thereafter, the suit was filed. The respondents filed a written statement, opposing the suit. Their case is that they have approached the appellant for financial assistance and taking advantage of the same, he brought into existence Ex.A.1. They have raised the plea that even otherwise, the appellant was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The trial Court decreed the suit, through its judgment, dated 30.11.2007. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed A.S.No.57 of 2010 in the Court of the XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet. Through its judgment, dated 20.07.2011, the lower appellate Court modified the decree to be the one for refund of the amount covered by Ex.A.1 with interest at 6% per annum. Hence, this Second Appeal. Heard Sri Charan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. The suit was filed for the relief of specific performance, and on the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of agreement of sale dated 03.04.2001? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract, as prayed for? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the alternative relief of earnest money of Rs.69,904/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a.? 4) To what relief? On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and no documents were filed. 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the alternative relief of earnest money of Rs.69,904/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a.? 4) To what relief? On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and no documents were filed. On the suit being decreed, the respondents filed A.S.No.57 of 2010 and the lower appellate Court framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether Ex.A.1 agreement of sale dated 03.04.2001 is true, valid and binding on the defendants? 2) Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract dated 03.04.2001? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance as prayed for or whether the plaintiff is entitled to alternative relief of refund of the amount as prayed for? 4) To what relief? The only ground, on which the lower appellate court modified the decree of the trial Court, was that the appellant failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Arguments are advanced in relation thereto. Therefore, it needs to be seen as to whether the appellant proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. One of the important aspects to be pleaded and proved by a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. This is a mandate under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Apart from that, the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 also prescribes the standard forms incorporating such clauses. It is no doubt true that the appellant has incorporated the plea to the effect that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, and equally, it is true that the respondents have denied that contention. The burden squarely rests upon the appellant to prove that fact. The readiness and willingness on the part of a plaintiff in a suit of this nature is required to be from the date of execution of the agreement of sale itself. Though he need not demonstrate the ready cash or bank balance, he must prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he is ready to perform his part of contract, in accordance with the terms thereof. Though he need not demonstrate the ready cash or bank balance, he must prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he is ready to perform his part of contract, in accordance with the terms thereof. In the instant case, Ex.A.1 stipulated a condition that the balance of consideration must be paid by the end of April, 2001 and the respondents shall be under obligation to execute a sale deed. It was expected of the appellant herein to inform the respondents of his being ready to pay the balance of consideration on the stipulated date and to require them to participate in the execution of the sale deed. He waited almost for three years and the first document or the response that emanated from him was a notice, dated 26.03.2004 marked as Ex.A.5. Though it was stated that he orally informed the respondents of his readiness and willingness, the same is not substantiated through oral or documentary evidence. What emerges from the acts and omissions on the part of the appellant is that he informed of his readiness to pay the balance of consideration only through Ex.A.5, dated 26.03.2004, and there is nothing on record to disclose that he was ready at all, to pay the balance of consideration, when it was supposed to be paid. Though the date stipulated in the agreement of sale for payment of the balance of consideration cannot be treated as so sacrosanct as to result in denial of relief if the amount is not paid on that date, the readiness must be established some time around that date. As the period of less than one month was stipulated in Ex.A.1 for payment of balance of consideration, that would indicate the urgency involved. When the appellant did not offer to pay the balance of consideration nearly for three years, it cannot be said that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The lower appellate Court has taken the correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Further, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. However, since the respondents have been paid the advance sale consideration of Rs.51,400/-, they are under obligation to pay reasonable interest. The interest at the rate of 6% per annum awarded by the lower appellate Court is too meager. It deserves to be enhanced to 12% per annum. Further, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. However, since the respondents have been paid the advance sale consideration of Rs.51,400/-, they are under obligation to pay reasonable interest. The interest at the rate of 6% per annum awarded by the lower appellate Court is too meager. It deserves to be enhanced to 12% per annum. Hence, the Second Appeal is partly allowed, upholding the decree passed by the lower appellate Court, but enhancing the rate of interest to 12% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in the second appeal shall stand disposed of.