ABDUL HAKEEM KHAN Vs. ABDUL MANNAN KHADRI
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
ABDUL HAKEEM KHAN
ABDUL MANNAN KHADRI
Click here to view full judgement.
Alladi Kuppuswami, J. -
(1.)The plaintiff in O. S. No. 23 of 1961. Sub-court. Nizamabad, is the appellant. He filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 27-8-1950 to sell certain land, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed for delivery of possession of the said lands. The case of the petitioner as set out in the plaint was as follows: The plaintiff, the defendant and one Ekramuddin Ali Khan owned separate patta lands in certain villages in Bodhan August. 1944 all the three persons entered into an agreement which was duly registered. Thereby, they agreed to establish a joint farm by name. "The Graduates Farm" and to transfer their respective patta lands in the name of that farm and conduct their business with mutual consultation. Ekramuddin Ali Khan would have a share of eight annas in the rupees, while the plaintiff and the defendant would each have a share of four annas in the rupee. Subsequently, Ekramuddin Ali Khan sold his eight annas share to the remaining two persons , namely the plaintiff and the defendant through a sale-deed dated 28-4-1945 and thereafter the plaintiff and the defendant became the owners of all the land of the Graduates Farm with equal shares. On 27-8-1950, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement with Bharat Krishi Co., the defendant also executed the suit agreement in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell all the remaining lands in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 12,600 (OS). the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs. 8,600.00 (OS) on the same day. It was also provided in the agreement that the defendant would obtain permission from the revenue authorities for the alienation of that land. The plaintiff and the defendant, as per their agreement to sell in favour of Bharat Krishi Co. executed a registered sale-deed in their favour on 26-11-1957. The defendant, however did not obtain permission from the revenue authorities to sell his lands to the plaintiff in accordance with the second agreement in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, submitted an application for permission on 12/05/1959, and he was informed that there was no necessity for any permission as the transaction was between the two partners. Thereafter, the plaintiff asked the defending several times to receive and accept Rs. 4,000.00 the balance of consideration and execute a sale-deed. but the defendant did not comply with his request. Therefore, the plaintiff gave a registered notice on 9-11-1960. The defendant gave no reply. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement.
(2.)The defendant contended that the alleged agreement was false, forged and fabricated and denied the payment of Rs. 8,600.00 (OS) as advance to the defendant. He stated that after the execution of the sale deed in favour of Bhara Krishi Co. on 26-11-1957, the plaintiff and the defendant severed their jointures by the defendant severed their joint ness by taking each of them his patta lands which previously stood in his name and began to maintain them separately. The position, sine then was that each of them of his respective lands. The plaintiff finding that the defendant had fully developed his lands by investing a huge amount on it, entertained the dishonest idea of usurping the defendants land. He managed to prepare a forged document of agreement of sale purported to be written in 1950 and filed the suit dishonestly on foot of that agreement. The defendant, further contended that the suit was barred by imitation and that it was against the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands at which forbids the permanent alienation o agricultural lands, unless permission of the Collector is obtained and hence the agreement is opposed to public policy, void and unenforceable.
(3.)The learned Subordinate Judge framed the following issues: 1) Whether the suit sale agreement was made by the defendant in four of the plaintiff on 27-8-1950? if so, is it enforceable under the provision of law? 2) Whether the defendant obtained from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 8,600.00 under the said suit agreement in advance as earnest money? 3) Whether the suit is valued correctly and the court-fee paid is sufficient? 4) Whether the suit is within time? 5) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.