KONAKALLA RAMA RAO Vs. YARLAGADDA VENKATA SUBBAMMA
LAWS(APH)-1992-3-49
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 17,1992

KONAKALLA RAMA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
YARLAGADDA VENKATA SUBBAMMA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ABDUL SHAKER SAHIB VS. ABDUL RAHIMAN SAHIB [REFERRED TO]
DOKKU BHUSHAYYA VS. KATRAGADDA RAMAKRISHNAYYA [REFERRED TO]
K KALPANA SARASWATHI VS. P S S SOMASUNDARAM CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
PERIYAKKAL VS. DAKSHYANI [REFERRED TO]
M SAKUNTALA DEVI VS. V SAKUNTALA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. - (1.)These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the same facts and raise the same questions of law.
(2.)The petitioner in these revision petitions is the decree holder in O S 101 of 1975 on the file of the Subordinate Judge Eluru. The said suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement for the sale of the suit property against judgment debtor No. 1 and his two minor sons judgment debtors 2 and 3. On 27-2-76 the suit was decreed granting time to the decree holder to deposit purchase money on or before 31-5-76. However the amount was not deposited within the period specified by the Court but was deposited long thereafter on 29-8-77. The decree holder filed E P No 160 of 1978 against all the three judgment debtors for execution and registration of the sale-deed pursuant to the decree. Judgment debtor No. 1 filed E A No. 995 of 82 and judgment debtors 2 and 3 filed E A No. 988 of 82 in the said execution petition under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act praying to grant rescission of the contract for sale dated 9-11-74 stating that the purchase money was Dot deposited by the decree holder within the time specified in the decree. The decree holder contended that the agreement could not be rescinded in execution proceedings and that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. It was further stated that the judgment debtors filed application for setting aside the exparte decree and after the same was dismissed they took the matter in appeal to the High Court which was also dismissed as not pressed therefore the decree had become final and could not be challenged or set aside. The executing Court allowed the said petitions (E As.) on 31-3-87. Against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in E A No. 995 of 82 C R P No. 1985 of 87 is preferred and against the order in E A 988 of 1982 CRP No. 2531 of 1987 is preferred. When these C R Ps, came up before Ramanujulu Naidu J the learned Judge framed the following questions :
1) Whether the successful plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of immoveable property can deposit into the Court that passed the decree in his favour the balance of consideration due under the agreement after expiry of the date stipulated under the agreement without filing an application for extension of time;

2) In case he chooses to make an application is he bound to make the application to the Court that passed the decree and not to the Court where he seeks to execute the decree ?

3) Even if no such deposit is made by him is not this Court empowered to grant extension of time without an application when the matter comes up before this Court and when this Court is satisfied that all the equities are in his favour ?

4) In any event once the deposit is made after expiry of the period prescri bed under the decree would not this Court be justified when the matter comes up before this Court to condone the delay and refuse to assist the unsuccessful seller to rescind the decree when once this Court is satisfied that there are no equities in favour of the seller ?
The learned Judge observed that in view of the importance of the questions the revisions required to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court. Accordingly these CRPs. have come up before us.
(3.)Sri T Veerabhadraiah the learned counsel for the petitioner in these revision petitions contends that the applications filed by judgment-debtors in the execution petition to rescind the contract for the sale of suit property are misconceived and that the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain much less to allow them in execution proceedings.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.