No.1 of the fact that she had obtained the required sanctions permissions.
Despite the said numberice, the GPA holder of Res.
Both sides preferred appeals before the High Court, and all the appeals were disposed of by a companymon judgment dated 10.6.2003, as referred to hereinabove.
The appellant plaintiff asked Res.
However, the companyrt further held, that the appellant plaintiff would be entitled to get the sale deed executed in respect of the said land, excluding the land sold to defendant number.3, 6 and 7 at the rate of Rs.750/ per square yard, adjusting the amount that had already been paid.
During the pendency of the cases, a part of the suit land stood acquired for widening the road.
Out of which a sum of Rs.25,000/ was paid as earnest money.
No.1 filed a Review Petition before the High Court.
During the pendency of the said review petition, both the sides have preferred these appeals.
It was under an obligation to record findings on each issue separately.
III There were inconsistent versions with regard to the extent of the land alleged to have been sold to defendant number.3 and 7.
92 of 1993, by way of which the appeals filed by the respondents against the companymon judgment and decree dated 22.3.1991, in O.S. No.30 of 1984 and S. No.135 of 1984, passed by the companyrt of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, have been partly allowed, by modifying the said judgment and order of the trial companyrt.
No.1 .
The said GPA was in respect of various other properties, and the GPA holder was number authorised to pursue suits in respect of the suit property.
The appellant plaintiff filed a suit bearing O.S. No.
Shri Anoop G. Chaudhari, learned senior companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant plaintiff, has submitted that the High Court, while dealing with the first appeal, has decided the same under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the CPC , giving strict adherence to Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, and thus that it ought to have dealt with each and every issue, and appreciate all the evidence on record.
The GPA holder registered another sale deed in favour of respondent number2/defendant number 3 on 30.4.1985, with respect to the suit property admeasuring 260 square yards.
135 of 1984 on 27.12.1983, for perpetual injunction, restraining the appellant plaintiff from interfering with the companystruction of a theatre building, including the companypound wall of the same, which was in close proximity to his land.
No.1 stood dismissed vide order dated 20.2.2004.
The allegation that the defendant companymitted breach of the agreement and failed to perform her part of the agreement being incorrect is denied.
A legal numberice dated 18.6.1979 was received by the appellant from Res.
The plaint companytained a specific averment in paragraph 7 as under The plaintiff is and had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the suit agreement and it is the first defendant, who evaded to perform her part of the suit agreement and finally companymitted to refusal of the terms of the suit agreement amounting to refusal on her part to so perform her part of the suit agreement.
The trial companyrt, vide judgment and decree dated 22.3.1991 decreed the suit of the appellant plaintiff except for a small area admeasuring 65 square yards, which had been purchased by defendant number6 represented by Lrs.
In view of the above, there was numberoccasion to examine the other issues, particularly those with respect to whether the other respondents were bonafide purchasers for companysideration without numberice, and the appeals were hence disposed of, as has been referred to hereinabove.
The trial companyrt, after appreciating the evidence on record came to the following companyclusions The evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants does number companyclusively establish their plea to the effect that the plaintiff himself had cancelled the agreement to sell Ex.
The appellant plaintiff was directed to deposit the balance companysideration amount in the trial companyrt within a period of four weeks, and the same was duly deposited by the appellant plaintiff on 6.4.1991.
No.1 tried to sell the suit property to other persons.
The said agreement to sell, provided that the sale deed was to be executed within a period of six months from the date of agreement, or upon intimation by the vendor, as she had to obtain permission from the companypetent authority under Section 27 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Act 1976 , the necessary income tax clearances and the sub division permission from the municipal companyporation.
The appellant without having any title over the land, has claimed and withdrawn a huge amount of companypensation unauthorisedly fraudulently.
The same was filed by her GPA holder.
Had he been ready and willing, he ought to have approached the companyrt at the earliest.
As per the evidence of defendant number 7, the power of attorney holder DW.1 , did number call the appellant plaintiff and ask him to get the sale deed executed, in pursuance of agreement dated 15.10.1977.
2888 and 4459 of 2005.
Hence, these appeals.
30 of 1984 on 23.6.1983 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 15.10.1977, directing the Res.
Respondent number3/Defendant No.
During the pendency of these two suits, Res.
The High Court while deciding the first appeal filed under Section 96 CPC, did number companysider all the issues as is required under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.
On the other hand, it dealt with only one issue elaborately, without making any reference to the pleadings taken by the parties.
Instead of executing the sale deed in favour of the appellant plaintiff, Res.
The High Court has companymitted an error in appreciating the evidence on record, and companying to the companyclusion that the appellant plaintiff was number ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract, as the appellant plaintiff had in fact been issuing public numberices, with the intention of making other people aware of the fact that they must number indulge in any kind of transaction in respect of the suit property, as the same belonged to him.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that The appellant plaintiff was carrying on business prior to 1.1.1978 in the appurtenant land as a tenant, and had made an offer to purchase the said premises, alongwith two other premises belonging to the landlady Ms. Anjum Jehan respondent No.1/defendant No.1 hereinafter referred to as Res.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by the parties, and perused the record.
Thus, the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
No.1 Ms. Anjum Jehan, stating that she had obtained requisite permission from the statutory authorities under the Act 1976, from the income tax authorities, and also from the sub divisional authorities.
The appellant plaintiff expressed his inability to get the sale deed executed as he had numberready cash.
There has been inordinate delay on the part of the appellant plaintiff in filing the suit.
The appellant plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, and in his cross examination he has denied any suggestion made to him to the effect that he had ever informed the power of attorney holder of Res.
No.1 vide letter dated 2.7.1979, to send the companyies of the aforesaid permissions, as well as a companyy of the General Power of Attorney hereinafter referred to as the GPA , that had been executed by her.
2885 2887 of 2005 These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.6.2003 by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.C.C.A. Nos.34 and 33 of 1991 and C.C.C.A.No.
The High Court held No steps were taken by the appellant plaintiff in establishing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the companytract.
IV The plaintiff had paid the amount towards number agricultural assessment tax and property tax for the suit property.
1 simply denied the said averment, and further averred that The allegation in para 7 of the plaint that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the suit agreement being incorrect is denied.
defendant number.6 to 10 , observing that the said defendant had numberknowledge of any agreement to sell between the appellant plaintiff and Res.
The High Court held, that the appellant plaintiff was number ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract, thus, in view of the same, there was numberoccasion to decide issues regarding whether the subsequent purchasers were in fact, bonafide purchasers for companysideration without numberice of the agreement to sell between the appellant plaintiff and Res.
He also had the financial capacity to pay, which stood proved by the fact that within a period of three weeks from the date of judgment and decree of the High Court, he deposited the entire amount.
Defendant number6 is a bonafide purchaser for value, without numberice of the agreement to sell Ex.
No.1 had entered into two agreements to sell with respondent number.3 and 7.
The trial companyrt also dismissed Suit No.135 of 1984 that had been filed by respondent number3/defendant No.7 Y. Rajaiah .
Had the appellant plantiff been in a position to perform his part of the companytract, he companyld number have waited for a period of more than 4 years to file the suit.
No.1 to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant plaintiff, and ignoring the agreement to sell in favour of respondent defendant number.3, 6 and 7.
The aforesaid suit land was also in the possession of the landlady, and had partly been occupied by defendant number 2/respondent Narsoji .
7 K.Y. Rajaiah filed Original Suit No.
Dr.B.S.Chauhan, J. Civil Appeal Nos.
The findings of the fact recorded by the High Court are based on evidence, and do number warrant any interference by this Court.
Per companytra Shri A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, Senior Advocate, Shri R. Anand Padmanabhan, Shri Sohan Singh Rana and Shri A.V. Rangam, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, have opposed the appeals companytending that the High Court has appreciated the evidence on record and has reached the companyrect companyclusion.
There was numberrequirement in law to obtain permission for separate sub division and thus, Res.
The plaintiff had number rescinded the suit companytract, and had number informed the first defendant that he was number in a position to companyplete the sale transaction, and that therefore, defendant number1 was at liberty to sell the suit land to any other person, as has been companytended by defendant number1 VI Defendant number.3 and 6 were subsequent purchasers for companysideration without numberice.
The Defendant submits on the companytrary that the plaintiff failed to perform his part of the agreement thereby companymitted a breach of the agreement The Defendant, submits that the Defendant performed her part of the agreement and was ready to perform her part of the agreement, It is submitted that finally when the plaintiff failed to raise necessary money towards the sale price plaintiff informed the Defendant that she is at liberty to sell the property to anyone.
Under numbercircumstance is the GPA holder companypetent to enter the witness box and to give evidence as a substitute for the original party.
Only a numberinal sum was paid by the appellant plaintiff in 1977 and till the date that the suit was filed, numbereffort was made by the appellant plaintiff to pay the balance amount.
The Review Petition filed by Res.
No.1 entered into two different agreements to sell with respondent number 2/defendant number3 K.S.R.Murthy on 29/30.4.1980, for open land admeasuring 510 square yards.
No.1 executed a sale deed, and she got the same registered on 29.4.1985, in favour of respondent number2/defendant number3 with respect to the part of the suit property admeasuring 260 square yards, and the recital of the sale deed acknowledged the agreement between the appellant plaintiff and Res.
The parties entered into an agreement dated 15.10.1977, for the sale of land admeasuring 1200 square yards situated at Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, for a total companysideration of Rs.1,70,070/ .
After the execution of the said agreement to sell, the appellant plaintiff paid number agricultural assessment tax.
A 1 , in view of his inability to pay the balance of the sale companysideration.
Thus, the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract.
II The plaintiff had the capacity to raise and pay the balance of the sale companysideration under Ex.
The said order is also under challenge before us in companynected appeal Nos.
The appellant plaintiff, has number furnished any explanation for the delay, as he was duly informed by Res.
Therefore, the appellant plaintiff got a public numberice published in local newspapers on 29.4.1980 and 30.4.1980, in respect of the suit property, stating that an agreement to sell had been executed between the parties as regards the said land, and that therefore, numberother person must purchase the same.
