VEMULA RAGHAVAIAH ALIAS RAGHAVULU GUPTA Vs. JONNALAGADDA VENKATASUBRAHMANYA SIDDANTI AND OTHERS
LAWS(APH)-1955-3-52
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 24,1955

Vemula Raghavaiah Alias Raghavulu Gupta Appellant
VERSUS
Jonnalagadda Venkatasubrahmanya Siddanti And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PEGG V. WISDEN [REFERRED TO]
ARDESHIR MAMA V. FLORA SASSOON [REFERRED TO]
S V SANKARALINGA NADAR VS. P T S RATNASWAMI NADAR [REFERRED TO]
KODALI BAPAYYA VS. YADAVALLI VENKATARATNAM [REFERRED TO]
IMMADI MAHALAKSHMAMMA VS. IMMADI VENKATACHALAMAYYA [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF INDIA LTD VS. JAMSETJI A H CHINOY AND MESSRS CHINOY AND CO [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

SATYANARAYANA RAO,J. - (1.)The purchaser's action for specific performance of a contract of a sale relating to immovable property was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nellore, and he appeals to this Court against the said decision.
(2.)The contract under consideration was entered into between the plaintiff-purchaser and defendants 1 and 2 on 7th December, 1943, Exhibit A-1, where-under defendants 1 and 2 agreed to convey to the plaintiff their ? ..?th and half share respectively in a house in a very busy locality of Nellore town and the first defendant further agreed to execute a sale deed on behalf of his minor son, the third defendant, of his interest in the suit house which was a one-third for a stated consideration of Rs. 7,000 for all the shares. On the date the contract was entered into, an advance of Rs. 115 was paid and the balance was agreed to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of the registration of the deed of sale. A month's time was fixed under the contract for completing the sale. The first defendant is the father of defendants 2 and 3.
(3.)The suit was instituted on 7th December, 1946, when the period of three years from the date of the contract of sale was about to expire. The plaintiff charged the defendants that they evaded performance of the contract on one ground or the other though he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the amount and obtaining a sale deed. By the final notice on 2nd December, 1946, defendants 1 and 2 refused to perform their part of the contract for the person that owing to the continuous default of the plaintiff it was cancelled by a prior notice and that therefore the contract was not subsisting. It is their definite case that throughout the period the plaintiff was not only not ready but was even unwilling to perform the contract as he entered into the contract not for the purpose of carrying out its terms but with a view to speculate in the transaction, as by that time the value of the property was practically doubled owing to various contributory causes under which the demand for houses in Nellore town became more acute.
;


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