M.R. Shah, J. - (1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 6.8.2007 in Appeal Suit No. 2638 of 1993 and CMP No. 7692 of 2003, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein the original defendant and has confirmed the judgment and decree of specific performance passed by the learned trial Court, the original defendant has preferred the present appeals.
(2.) The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under: That the appellant herein the original defendant purchased the suit schedule property admeasuring 17 acres 39 cents situated at village Billawaka, Thimmapuram Post, Kakinada Taluk, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh by a registered sale deed dated 6.10.1971. The land in question was subjected to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, which came into force in the year 1975. That vide order dated 20.11.1976, the Land Reforms Tribunal held that the appellant is holding an excess land to the extent of 0.0013 cents. It appears that a revision application was pending/proceedings before the High Court at the instance of the predecessor in title of the suit property. That the appellant herein executed an agreement to sell in favour of the respondent herein the original plaintiff vide agreement to sell dated 30.12.1985 and agreed to sell the said property (suit property) for a sale consideration of Rs.2,45,000/-. The respondent herein the original plaintiff purchaser paid the part sale consideration of Rs.55,000/-. The remaining balance amount was required to be paid within three months. According to the plaintiff, it was also agreed that the appellant has to execute the sale deed after measuring the suit land for arriving at the actual sale consideration payable. According to the plaintiff, time and again, he demanded the original sale deed in favour of the appellant dated 6.10.1971 as well as the final order passed by the Tribunal/final certificate issued by the Agricultural Land Tribunal and also requested the vendor to measure the land and execute the sale deed. However, as the vendor the appellant did not execute the sale deed, though according to the plaintiff he was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and perform his part of contract, nothing further was done and therefore the purchaser the plaintiff served a legal notice upon the appellant dated 6.4.1987. The said notice was replied by the defendant vide reply dated 14.4.1987. That thereafter the respondent herein the original plaintiff instituted Original Suit No.16/1993 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram praying for a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30.12.1985 by directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by producing the original title deed and non-surplus order in the land ceiling case of the defendant and her vendor. In the alternative, it was prayed to pass a decree for a sum of Rs.75,169.75 with interest from 30.12.1985 on Rs.55,000/-. 2.1 The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement. It was the case on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract as he was not having balance of sale consideration and therefore, he could not pay the amount and obtain the sale deed. It was also the case on behalf of the defendant that she purchased the land in question from one Y. Somayya Choudary and the land thereafter held in favour of the defendant and the Land Tribunal held that the said transaction between the defendant and the Y. Somayya Choudary was a bona fide transaction. According to the defendant, the same had attained finality. It was the case on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff was aware of the aforesaid transaction and even the order passed by the Land Tribunal. It was also the case on behalf of the defendant that before entering into the agreement itself, in the beginning, the defendant informed the plaintiff that the sale deed is filed in the land ceiling proceedings of Y. Somayya Choudary and after termination of the proceedings the document will be obtained and delivered to the plaintiff. It was also the case on behalf of the defendant that the copies of the land ceiling orders were handed over to the plaintiff and having satisfied the plaintiff entered into the agreement to sell. 2.2 On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and is entitled to seek for specific performance of the suit agreement of sale? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the alternative relief of refund of advance of sale consideration with interest as claimed? (3) To what relief? 2.3 The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and marked Exhibits A1 to A4. The defendant examined 5 witnesses including herself as DW1 and marked Exhibit X1 through DW3. It appears that during the course of trial, as it was the case on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff had no money to pay the balance sale consideration and therefore the learned trial Court directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance of the sale consideration into the Court to verify his bona fides. That the plaintiff deposited the balance sale consideration within the extended time granted to him on a petition.
(3.) That thereafter on appreciation of evidence and considering the entire material on record including the deposition of DW1 and even reply to the notice by DW1, the learned trial Court decreed the suit by directing the defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. While decreeing the suit, the learned trial Court specifically observed and held that it was the defendant who committed the breach of contract. On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court also found that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and it was the defendant who committed the breach of contract and therefore the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance.;