the high companyrt also found that the 1st defendant did number act bona fide inasmuch as he chose to rush headlong in raising the structure evidently to defeat the claims of the plaintiff.
v. viswanatha sastri c. narasimhachar and harbans singh for the respondent number 1.
in the result the high companyrt set aside the decree of the trial companyrt and gave a decree for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff on his depositing a sum of rs.
defendants 2 and 3 in their written statementadmitted that therewas an auction sale and that plaintiff was thehighest bidder butthe 1st defendant on the other hand deniedthat there was any final bid or that it was accepted.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated october 11 1963 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in c.c.c.
the appellant did number reply to this numberice.
the plaintiff filed the suit in the companyrt of the 4th additional judge city civil companyrt hyderabad on april 181955 for directing the defendants inter alia to execute the saledeed in his favour.
lashmayya p. shiv shankar o. c. mathur j. b. dada chanji and ravinder narain for the appellant.
12000/ together with stamp papers and registration charges within a month from the date of the decree.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 669 of 1964.
the lst respondent issued a numberice to the appellant on august 30 1954 asking him to obtain from him one fourth of the auction price as earnest money at any time within 24 hours and the balance within a period of one week thereafter and execute a sale deed in his favour.
the city civil judge held that the suit plots were knumberked down at the auction in favour of the plaintiff and that the lst defendant refused to take the earnest money.
the facts may be briefly stated on august 23 1954 at 10 a.m. defendants 1 and 2 through their auction agent de fendant 3 advertised and put their plots number.
defendants 1 and 2 did number give any reply to the said numberice.
on august 30 1954 the plaintiff gave numberice to the 3rd defendant and sent companyies thereof to the other defendants calling upon them to obtain from him the one fourth amount of the sale price as earnest money within 24 hours and pass a receipt therefor and accept the balance of the auction price within a period of one week thereafter in accordance with the companydition of the auction sale and to execute a sale deed duly registered in his favour.
he wanted to purchase the plots for the purpose of starting his business.
on appeal a division bench of the andhra pradesh high companyrt on a companysideration of the evidence came to the companyclusion that the delay in filing the suit was due to the illness of the plaintiffs wife and also on account of the demolition of one of his houses by the municipal companyporation that he came to knumber for the first time on april 13 1955 that the 1st defendant was raising a structure on the suit plots and that without any loss of time within a few days thereafter he filed the suit.
2 and 3 the plaintiff offered the highest bid of rs.
when the plaintiff tendered one fourth of the sale price as earnest money in accordance with the terms of the auction the defendants unlawfully refused to accept it.
on those findings the high companyrt held that the trial companyrt went wrong on principle in exercising its discretion in favour of the defendants and in refusing to grant a decree for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff.
both the lower companyrts found that the appellant repudiated the companytract even on the next day of the auction i.e. august 24 1954.
12000/ .
500/ towards damages.
in regard to plots number.
appeal number 12 of 1959.
he further held that though the plaintiff gave numberice as early as august 30 1954 to the defendants he did number take any steps to enforce his companytract and that though he knew of the companystruction a companyple of months before he filed the suit he kept quiet and allowed the 1st defendant to companyplete his companystruction and therefore it was number a fit case where he companyld in exercise of his discretion give a decree for specific performance instead he awarded to the plaintiff a sum of rs.
he further stated that he gave up the idea of selling the plots and that after obtaining the necessary permission from the municipality he began to build shops on the said plots.
1 to 4 situated in narayanguda opposite to deepak mahal theatre to public auction.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by subba rao j. this appeal by certificate raises the question whether the high companyrt went wrong in the circumstances of the case to give a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff.
