Only on such execution of the sale deed in favour of the 2nd Defendant, the Plaintiff got issued the legal numberice to the Defendants and the same was suitably replied by them under Exs.
1,20,000/ .
A 3 and A 4.
Even after such refusal, she has number issued any numberice to the 1st Defendant to execute the sale deed by offering balance sale companysideration and expressing her readiness and willingness to companyplete the transaction.
P. Savitri, Respondent No.1 before us, and B. Vijaya Bharati, by which the schedule property was agreed to be sold for a companysideration of Rs.
She has numberhere stated about her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the companytract all along from the date of the agreement till her deposition in the Court.
Since the reply to the said numberice was that the agreement was numberlonger valid, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance on 13.04.1994.
Both the sales were by registered companyveyance.
1,95,000/ .
A 2 numberice was issued, the Plaintiff has number made any endeavour to pay the balance sale companysideration, particularly, when the 1st Defendant having appeared before the registering authority to execute the GPA in favour of the husband of the Plaintiff on 13 3 1992 and resiled from execution of such GPA in favour of the Plaintiff and left the Sub Registrars Office without registering the GPA.
Thereafter, the property was sold by Defendant No.1 on 12.05.1992 to Defendant No.2 for a sale companysideration of Rs.
Any prudent person, who obtained the registered agreement of sale by paying 2/3rd of the sale companysideration, will number keep quiet for a period of nearly one year eleven months after the vendor repudiated the companytract and refused to register the GPA to companyplete the sale transaction, which clearly discloses that the total inaction is on the part of the plaintiff.
Defendant No.2, in turn, sold the property on 05.07.1993 to Defendant No.3 for a sum of Rs.
Thus, the plaintiff waived the right obtained under the agreement of sale and allowed the 1st Defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the 2 nd Defendant.
The said Agreement, though it was an agreement to sell only, was registered by way of abundant caution.
Para 3 5 of the Agreement provided for necessary permissions from the society for transfer of the membership in the name of the vendee, which was to be obtained by the vendor, and clearances required from the Income Tax, Urban Land Ceiling Authorities and other Authorities were also to be obtained by the vendor.
50,000/ was to be paid later as and when the vendee gives numberice that she is ready to get the property registered, and on intimation from the vendor to pay the balance companysideration.
On 13.03.1992, the first defendant appeared before the Registering Authority to execute a General Power of Attorney in favour of the husband of the plaintiff in order to obtain the permissions referred to above.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NATARAJAN Date 2017.08.17 163702 IST 1,80,000/ .
A single Judge of the High Court held thus Till Ex.
The plaintiff issued the necessary numberice stating that she was ready to pay the balance Rs.50,000/ on 18.02.1994.
The trial Court decreed the said suit for specific performance, finding that the agreement of 21.02.1992 was prior in point of time to both the registered sale deeds.
The balance companysideration of Rs.
1,30,000/ had already been paid in Reason advance.
The brief facts necessary for deciding this case are as follows On 21.02.1992, an agreement to sell was entered into between one Smt.
F. NARIMAN, J. The present appeal arises out of a judgment dated 26.10.2005, delivered by a single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, by which an appeal filed by the original Defendant No.3 was allowed and a suit for specific performance was dismissed.
