VANKINENL SADASFVA CHAKRADHARA RAO Vs. SARDAR PRATAP SINGH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VANKINENL SADASFVA CHAKRADHARA RAO
SARDAR PRATAP SINGH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Defendants 2 and 5 in O.S.No.
33 of 1968 on the file of the Court of
the District judge, West Godavari at
Eluru are the appellants. The suit was
filed by Sardar Pratap Singh, the 1st
respondent herein, agains- the seven defendants for specific performance of an
agreement of sale (Exhibit A-l) dt.
9-2-1968 executed by the is defendant
for himself and on behalf of his minor
son, the 4th defendant and by the 2nd
defendant and his minor son the 5th
defendant represented by him in favour
of the plaintiff, agreeing to convey the
suit property, 529 square yards of the
housesite.at Rs. !4/-per square yard.
An advance of Rs. 2000/-was paid on the
date of execution of the agreement.
Another sum of Rs. IOOO/-was paid on
4-3-1968. The plaintiff was ready to pay
the balance and take a sale deed from the
defendants provided they obtained the
consent of the 3rd defendant. On
15-4-1968, the plaintiff deposited the
balance of Rs. 4406/-in the Bank and
Issued notice to the defendants on
16-4-68 calling upon them to execute a
sale deed in accordance with the suit
agreement. Defendants I and 2 sent a joint
reply on 25-4-1968 stating that the extent
of site mentioned i" the suit agreement
was only tentative and that after actual
measurement,the extent within the boundaries disclosed in the agreement was
only 446 square yards and that they
were prepared to execute a sale deed only
for that extent. Defendants 3 and 4, also
sent a repfy with similar allegations
Defendants 6 and 7, who were subsequent purchasers, also sent a reply stating
that they had purchased the land without
notice of the prior agreement in favour
of the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore
filed the suit for specific performance
of the agreement.
All the defendants contested the
(2.) The learned District Judge framed the following nine issues:
1. Whether the suit agreement
dated 9-2- 1968 is true, valid and
binding on defendants 1,3 and 4 ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled
to specific performance against any of
the defendants ?
3. Whether the 4th defendant was
a minor on the date of the suit agreement ?
4. Who committed breach of the
suit agreement ?
5. Whether the plaint sketch is
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled
to the alternative relief of refund cf the
advance and recovery of damages?
7. Whether the suit agreement is
a completed document; If not, whether
the same is enforceable even against the
parties that actually executed it ?
8. Whether defendants 6 and 7
are purchasers of the red and blue marked portions in the plaint plan with
notice of the agreement of sale in favour
of the plaintiff executed by defendants
I to 5 ?
9. To what relief ?
(3.) The learned District }udge held
that the suit agreement was true and
valid and binding on defendants 1,3 and
4 and that the 4th deferant was a minor
on the dace of the suit agreement, that
the plaint sketch was correct and that
the suit agreement was a completed
document He however, held that defendants 6 and 7 were bonafide purchasers of
the suit property without notice of the
agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff, and therefore he was not entitled to
specific performance of the suit agreement against thedefendants and that
he was only entitled to claim the alternative relief of refund of advance money
and damages. Accordingly, the learned
Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff
with costs against defendants I to 5 for
the alternative relief of Rs. 3000/- towards the amount paid as advance and
for liquidated damages of Rs. 40QO/. The
suit was dismissed as against defendants
6 and 7, but without costs. Hence the
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.