Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 137 (TS)

Mohammed Sajid v. Mohammed Naimuddin

2022-03-04

A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

body2022
ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff assailing the orders dated 26.07.2019 in I.A.No.302 of 2019 in O.S.No.131 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court –cum- VII Additional District Judge, Sangareddy. 2. This application in I.A.No.302 of 2019 is filed under Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, C.P.C) to extend time to deposit the balance sale consideration to the credit of the suit as per the orders dated 31.08.2017 in I.A.No.628 of 2017 till the survey of land and mutation of the suit land in the name of respondent/defendant takes place. 3. Heard on both sides. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the original suit. 5. The plaintiff has filed the original suit for specific performance of suit agreement of sale dated 06.06.2016 alleging that he has already paid an amount of Rs.21,50,000/- and that he is willing to pay the balance sale consideration out of Rs.76,23,000/-, but the defendant has refused to execute the registered sale deed. Finally on 19.08.2016, the plaintiff has approached the defendant, but in vain. 6. This application under Section 148 of C.P.C. is filed along with supporting affidavit stating that the defendant has approached the Court with an application in I.A.No.708 of 2018 under Order XII Rule 6 of C.P.C. to dismiss the suit as the plaintiff failed to deposit the balance sale consideration, but failed to deposit the same. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff seeks to submit that the plaintiff is willing to perform his part of contract, but due to financial constraints, he could not deposit the balance sale consideration and that time is not essence of the contract in respect of the immovable properties. As the defendant has failed to execute the sale deed, he has filed the original suit for specific performance of agreement of sale and now, he has collected the amount and willing to deposit the same. 8. Learned counsel for the defendant seeks to submit that there are no bonafides in the conduct of the plaintiff. The agreement of sale is dated 06.06.2016. Due to passage of time, there is escalation in the value of the property and the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance of suit agreement of sale and he is also not entitled for deposit of the balance sale consideration. 9. The agreement of sale is dated 06.06.2016. Due to passage of time, there is escalation in the value of the property and the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance of suit agreement of sale and he is also not entitled for deposit of the balance sale consideration. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied on the principles laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs.A.Kanthamani v. Mrs.Nasreen Ahmed, AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 1236. 10. Whereas, the learned counsel for the defendant relied on the principles laid in the following decisions:- (i) SARADAMANI KANDAPPAN vs. S.RAJALAKSHMI AND OTHERS, (2011) 12 SCC AT PAGE No.18 (ii) NANJAPPAN vs. RAMASAMY AND ANOTHER, (2015)14 SCC AT PAGE No.341 (iii) RAVI SETIA vs. MADAN ALAL AND OTHERS, 2019 0 AIR(SC) AT PAGE No.4791 11. I have carefully perused the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant. The original suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale. The plaintiff has already paid an amount of Rs.21,50,000/-, but he has failed to deposit the balance sale consideration before the Court either at the time of filing the suit or subsequently having obtained permission of the Court for extension of time, finally filed a memo dated 25.04.2019. When the other side has opposed for granting permission, filed present application. 12. The trial Court looking into the conduct of the plaintiff and also taking into consideration of the fact that the present application is only filed by the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration till survey of suit land and mutation of the land in the name of the defendant held that there is no such condition in sale agreement and without there being any such condition in the sale agreement dated 06.06.2016, seeking time to deposit the balance sale consideration till survey of land and mutation of the same in the name of defendant, is not maintainable. Therefore, the trial Court having considered the facts of the case, as the plaintiff is alleging that the suit schedule land is not yet surveyed and mutation not affected on to the name of defendant, he may be permitted to deposit the said balance consideration subject to the condition the defendant shall not be allowed to withdraw the said amount before affecting mutation or before getting the land surveyed, dismissed the said application holding that the plaintiff has not approached the Court to deposit the balance sale consideration unconditionally. 13. In a suit for specific performance under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act 1963, it is for the plaintiff to prove that he has performed or has been always ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than the terms, the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. 14. In the case of Mrs.A.Kanthamani v. Mrs.Nasreen Ahmed, AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 1236 (first supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the expression ‘readiness’ and ‘willingness’ has been the subject matter of interpretation in many cases, even prior to its insertion in Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963. The petitioner is coming up with the present application to extend time to deposit the balance sale consideration till survey of the suit land and the land affecting mutation in the name of defendant. The trial Court observed that there is no condition in sale agreement that the sale deed shall be executed only after arrival of actual extent on survey and mutation of the suit land in the name of defendant. Without such condition in the sale agreement dated 06.06.2016, seeking extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration on such a condition, is not maintainable. I do not find any irregularity or infirmities in the orders impugned. 15. Without such condition in the sale agreement dated 06.06.2016, seeking extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration on such a condition, is not maintainable. I do not find any irregularity or infirmities in the orders impugned. 15. The facts of the present case on hand are quite distinct and the principles laid in the decisions relied on by the defendant are not helpful to the defendant at this stage as serious disputed issues are involved and it is a matter of trial and evidence to decide whether the plaintiff has failed to perform his part of contract either initially or during the extended period and whether he is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale or for refund of earnest money without interest, etc. All such disputed issues are subject to the findings to be recorded after full length trial in the original suit. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in exercising the jurisdiction by the trial Court. 16. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the orders dated 26.07.2019 in I.A.No.302 of 2019 in O.S.No.131 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court –cum- VII Additional District Judge, Sangareddy. However, considering the fact that the original suit is filed in the year 2016 and the evidence of the plaintiffs is in progress, the trial Court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the original suit itself within a period of nine (9) months from the date of receipt of the copy of order. Both the parties to the suit shall cooperate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal as directed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 17. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.