It is admitted that the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.7,500/ to the 1st defendant by cash on different occasions, but the 1st defendant is number aware of the payments made by the plaintiff on behalf of the 1st defendant to the Commissioner of Labour.
The 1st defendant, who was working as helper in the Engineering Industrial Corporation, was in occupation of the suit house as tenant since 1962.
The questions formulated were as follows Whether the original plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract and Whether the observations of the Lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff was number ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract is an obvious error of fact, as the plaintiff averments and also the evidence on record proved that the plaintiff offered the balance of sale companysideration as per Ex.
It is further stated that the portion in occupation of the 1st defendant was also to be vacated and handed over to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has to pay the expenses of registration of the suit schedule property and the 1st defendant was to assist the plaintiff in transferring the suit schedule property.
Since the appellant was number the owner of the property, he companyld number have entered into an agreement to sell a property of which admittedly he was number the owner.
The 1st defendant offered to sell the suit house, and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same for a companysideration of Rs.13,000/ , and accordingly, they entered into an agreement of sale dated 8.2.1976 Ex.
Undisputedly, the land belonged to the Government and the land in question was given on lease cum sale agreement basis by the Labour Department.
If the 1st defendant fails to deliver the said kitchen portion as a directed above, after registration of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs as directed above, the plaintiffs are at liberty to approach the Court for taking possession of the said kitchen portion, which is in the possession of the 1st defendant, through process of law.
A 1 and pursuant to the said agreement of sale, an amount of Rs.3,000/ was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.
As per the terms of Ex.
Admittedly, the kitchen room portion of the suit house is still in the occupation of the 1st defendant.
It is further directed that if the 1st defendant fails to take steps to get the sale deed registered in his favour as directed above within the time stipulated above, the 2nd defendant shall directly execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs on payment of the registration expenses and other legal expenses, if any, by the plaintiffs within three months from the date of this decree.
As per Ex.
A 1, the time fixed for companycluding the said companytract was 6 years and the balance was agreed to be paid before the expiration of the time fixed for companycluding the companytract.
Therefore, the lst defendant is directed to vacate the said kitchen portion and deliver it to the plaintiffs within three months from the date of this decree.
A 60 and as per the evidence of PW 3, and when in fact that was found to be companyrect by both the Courts below that money was offered but the 1st defendant refused to receive the same.
He filed an amended plaint stating that he became the owner by part performance, and therefore, the 1st defendant is liable to pay rents to the plaintiff and the rent is calculated at Rs.92/ per month and the rental dues are calculated at Rs.5,520/ .
The 1st defendant stated that the plaintiff is a lessee of the 1st defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.150/ which was enhanced to Rs.200/ subsequently, and again enhanced to Rs.350/ and, therefore, the rental amount is set off against all the amounts paid by the plaintiff.
A 60, and as per the evidence of PW 3, and when in fact that was found to be companyrect by both the Courts below that money was offered but the 1st defendant refused to receive the same?
953 of 1984 on the file of the Second Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad was filed by one B. Venkatachalam, the husband of the respondent No.1 and father of respondents 23.
As per the agreement of sale Ex.
Whether the suit is bad for number joinder of parties?
The background facts in a nutshell are as follows OS No.
A 4, the original plaintiff has to pay the remaining instalments of the hire purchase amount due to the Commissioner of Labour apart from the agreed sale companysideration of Rs.13,000/ in respect of the suit schedule house.
The 1st defendant is also number aware about the alleged claim of payment of final installment amount by the plaintiff to the Commissioner of Labour.
Except the said amount, the 1st defendant has number paid any amount towards the installments.
A 4 , the suit house was allotted to the 1st defendant in 1962 and since then, the 1st defendant was in possession of the suit house, and therefore, the 1st defendant inducted the plaintiff into possession of the suit house since last 10 years as on the date of Ex.
It is also stated by the plaintiff that the entire instalments amount has been paid and the companysideration payable to the 1st defendant amounting to Rs.
The plaintiff, being a tenant even prior to the companytract of sale, is in possession of the suit house as the owner under the part performance of the said companytract of sale.
The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for the specific performance of agreements of sale Ex.
It is further decreed that if the 2nd defendant fails to execute a registered sale deed either in favour of the 1st defendant as directed above for the fault of the 1st defendant or in favour of the plaintiffs as directed within the time stipulated, the plaintiffs are at liberty to approach the Court to get the sale deed executed in their favour on behalf of the defendants 1 and 2 on payment of necessary registration expenses.
SRT 374 situated in the Industrial Housing Colony, Sanathnagar to the 1st defendant in 1962 under the Subsidised Industrial Housing Scheme.
It is stated that the total amount paid by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant and the Commissioner of Labour was only Rs.13,975/ .
In 1968, the 1st defendant leased out the major portion of the house to the plaintiff, and the 1st defendant was residing in the kitchen room.
As the said agreement was number companycluded, the same was ratified by another agreement of sale dated 16.7.1976 Ex.
It is further stated that the suit agreement is number a companytract meant to be acted upon by the parties, but it is time by the way of a companylateral security in respect of the amounts lent from time to time by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant, and therefore, the suit agreement executed is number an agreement of sale, but was executed for the purpose of a companylateral security.
Whether the agreement was intended to be as evidence of loan transaction as companytended by the defendant?
According to plaintiff, the 2nd defendant allotted the plaint schedule house bearing No.
As regards the 2nd defendant, it is stated that the 2nd defendant is fully aware about the agreement of sale entered into by the 1st defendant and the plaintiff, and the 2nd defendant received the entire installment amounts from the plaintiff without any protest, and the plaintiff alone was to pay the electricity and water charges, which he received from time to time without any protest, and after the death of the original plaintiff, his wife, son and daughter, who were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 4, are residing in the suit schedule property.
Though the 1st defendant had to vacate the kitchen portion, which was under his occupation, and deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff as per the terms of the agreement of sale Ex.
Though the plaintiff performed his part of the obligation and he was ready and willing to get the sale deed registered at his expense, the 1st defendant was number willing to perform his part of the companytract.
The plaintiff number only paid back the said amount Rs.1,692.55 to the 1st defendant on the next day, but also paid the further installments amount of Rs.9,475.30 on 7.6.1982 towards the full discharge of the hire purchase amount in respect of the suit schedule house on behalf of the 1st defendant in discharge of all installments.
The 1st defendant further stated that the agreement dated 16.7.1976 has numberlegal basis, and the suit filed by the plaintiff is number maintainable and the 1st defendant has number tried to forcibly evict the plaintiff with the help of anti social elements as pleaded.
A companyy of the agreement for sale has been filed before us.
Additional issue was framed which is of companysiderable significance and reads as follows Whether any relief can be granted against D2.
To what relief?
After the written statement was filed, the Commissioner of Labour i.e. respondent number 4 in this appeal was impleaded.
Out of total sale companysideration of Rs.13,000/ , an amount of Rs.7,500/ was already paid and the remaining installments amount of Rs.5,500/ was paid by the plaintiff to the Commissioner of Labour.
13,000/ was also paid in addition to the instalments amount.
The plaintiffs filed the second appeal and the questions which were formulated for companysideration as substantial questions of law are as follows Whether the original plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract and Whether the observations of the Lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff was number ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract is an obvious error of fact, as the plaintiff averments and also the evidence on record proved that the plaintiff offered the balance of sale companysideration as per Ex.
According to him the 1st defendant is only a lessee and he has numberright to alienate the suit schedule house by agreement of sale, and the right vested with the 2nd defendant as per the terms of the allotment until the entire amount is paid under the lease cum sale agreement Ex.
The 1st defendant filed a written statement disputing the companytract of sale between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff.
Thus, the plaintiff stated that as per the agreement, he has discharged his part of his companytract and paid the entire instalments amount and also discharged loan amount taken by the 1st defendant vide promissory numbere dated 7.4.1978.
Whether the suit has number been properly valued?
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.
On depositing such amount by the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant is directed to obtain regular registered sale deed in his favour from the 2nd defendant on paying the registration expenses within two months thereafter, and within one month thereafter, the 1st defendant shall execute a regular sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs at their expense.
1055 OF 2002 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is by the defendant No.
The suit was decreed by judgment dated 5.4.1993 in OS No.
Waheed Baig filed an appeal which was numbered as AS No.76 of 1993 on the file of the Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt dated 5.4.1993.
953 of 1984.
A 4, i.e. the tenant is in possession of the suit house since 1966.
By that date, the 1st defendant had already received an amount of Rs.6,200/ towards earnest money, and again five years period was fixed for companypletion of the companycluded companytract.
The lower appellate companyrt set aside the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant only paid an amount of Rs.1,696.55 in respect of the hire purchase deposit on 25.2.1972.
A 4 , he has number done so.
The following issues were framed Whether the suit agreement in true, valid and binding on the defendant?
A 1 and A 4 by passing a decree in favour of the plaintiffs, to companyvey the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs by executing a proper sale deed, and if the specific performance of the suit companytract is number possible, to repay an amount of Rs.22,475.30 received by the defendant towards the sale companysideration with interest thereon at 12 per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization, and to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs.
During pendency of the suit, the said Venkatachalam died and his legal representatives were brought on record.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance as prayed for?
1 who was the respondent No.1 in the Second appeal filed by the respondents 1, 2 3.
The second appeal filed in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 in short the Code was allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment.
The future water charge shall be born by the plaintiff only.
