TRINMURTHY CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. VIJAYA LAKSHMI GADGIL
LAWS(APH)-1992-8-4
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 18,1992

TRINMURTHY CONSTRUCTIONS Appellant
VERSUS
VIJAYA LAKSHMI GADGIL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KOLLIPARA SRIRAMULU DEAD VS. T ASWATHA NARAYANA DEAD [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. DEWA PROPERTIES LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-317] [REFERRED TO]
GULSHAN KUMAR VS. SAT NARAIN TULSIAN [LAWS(DLH)-2013-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
ASEAN LNG TRADING CO LTD NOW KNOWN AS PETRONAS LNG LTD VS. ADANI ENERGY LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2018-7-3] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

G.Radhakrishna Rao, J. - (1.)The plaintiff, M/s. Trimurthy Constructions, represented by its Partner, Omprakash Tibre-wala, is the appellant.
(2.)The plaintiff's suit for specific performance of the contract of sale was dismissed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by his judgment and decree dated 13/09/1988, passed in O.S. No. 311 of 1983 on his file.
(3.)The case of the plaintiff-firm, in a nutshell, is as follows :-- In the first week of December, 1980 QmprakashTibrewala, (who is examined as P.W. 1 in the lower Court), as a partner of the plaintiff-firm, approached the defendant, Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Gadgil, D. W. 1 for the purchase of the plaint schedule property for the purpose of developing it in pursuit of the two objectives of the firm of construction of residential and commercial complexes and selling them. The negotiations were followed till 10-12-1980 on which day the defendant agreed orally to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff-firm, and the plaintiff-firm agreed to purchase the same for a consideration of Rs.6 lakhs. On the same day the defendant assured the plaintiff that the tenants, who were occupying the portions of the plaint schedule premises, will also vacate the premises within a period of six months. On the same day the defendant also handed over to P.W. 1 true copy of the registered sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule premises, executed in favour of her father-in-law Sri Vinayak Gadgil (which is marked as Ex. A.2 and the English translated copy is marked as Ex. A.3), along with a copy of the plan (Ex. A.4) and a true copy of the gift deed (Ex.A.5) executed by her father-in-law Vinayak Gadgil in her favour. The original of Ex.A.I sale deed was also attested by the husband of the defendant, who is examined as (D.W. 3). P.W. 1 has also paid an advance of Rs. 20,000.00 to the defendant towards part consideration of the proposed sale. Thereafter, the matter was entrusted to M/s. J. J. Associates to survey the schedule premises who carried out the survey in the presence of the defendant during the period commencing from December, 1980 to 3rd week of February, 1981. The plaintiff paid Rs.2,000.00 to M/s. J. J. Associates, as per Ex.A.6 receipt, and another sum of Rs. 2,000/ - on 28-7-1981, as per Ex.A, 7 receipt, towards their fee. Thereafter, in the month of May, 1981 a draft sale agreement was prepared and the same was corrected by the defendant's husband (D.W. 3). In the meanwhile the plaintiff got prepared plans and submitted the same with the signatures of the defendant and P.W. 1, to the Municipal Authority for sanction of permission for construction and they have also paid a sum of Rs. 2844.20 to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, as per Ex.A. 11 receipt. As it was expected that the approval of the plans would be secured soon, the defendant and her husband (D.W. 3) suggested that the execution of a formal agreement of sale may be skipped and a regular sale deed could be taken after the plans were approved. As the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad demanded an unreasonable rate of fee, the plaintiff filed W.P. No. 4438/81 in this Court challenging the legality of the enhanced fee and obtained stay on 6/05/1981. On 9-6-1981 the Municipal Corporation returned the plans with some objections and the plaintiff submitted fresh application. Thereafter, the plaintiff advertised in the news papers about the proposed construction of the residential complex and also invited applications for recruitment of staff required in that connection. The plaintiff also paid Rs. 560.00 as evidenced by Ex.A. 15 receipt, and another sum of Rs. 265.00 as evidenced by Ex,A.16 receipt, for the two advertisements published in Deccan Chronicle on 31-5-1981 and 26-6-1981 respectively. The plaintiff also applied for atelephone connection on 2-6-1981 and deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 on 4-6-1981 towards application fee as per Ex.A.28 receipt. As required by the Municipal authority the plaintiff had secured two bank guarantees Exs.X.6 and X.7 for a total sum of Rs. 54,953.80 in favour of the Municipal Corporation to meet the permit fee ajid drainage fee. The plaintiff also paid Rs. 1670.67 to the Municipal Corporation towards HUDA fee, as per Ex.A. 19 receipt. Ultimately, on 7-8-1981, the plaintiff obtained sanction of the plans from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and Ex.A.22 is the plan sanctioned by the Corporation. But, having allowed the plaintiff to do all the above activities, the defendant, while dodging the matter on some pretext or other, finally on 16-8-1981, refused to execute the sale deed. Thereafter the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 24-8-1981, office copy of which is marked as fcx.A-. 23, asking the defendant to execute the sale deed for which the defendant gave a reply dated 16-9-1981 (Ex. A.25) denying the contract of sale. It is stated by the plaintiff that because of the sky-rocketing of the prices of residential sites in Hyderabad, the defendant had chosen to resile from1 the contract of agreement of sale.
;


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