The defendants are also entitled for mean sic profits from the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs.
307 of 1998 was dismissed.
The issues framed by the learned Trial Judge are as under Whether there is an agreement of sale in between the parties?
In the said written statement, however, numbercounter claim was filed.
80,000/ framed in the plaint.
6 and 7 herein is null and void.
2 to 5 in favour of Respondent Nos.
The Plaintiffs further submit that the Defendants are number entitled for relief of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.
According to Appellant, the factum of grant of approval of the said deed of sale was number companyveyed and only in the year 1997 he came to learn thereabout whereafter the said suit for specific performance of the companytract was filed.
10000/ on the date of alleged oral agreement.
Hence, the Counter claim for delivery of possession of the suit property.
6 7 herein by reason of a deed of sale dated 10.3.1998.
The Respondent Nos.
6 and praying for declaration that the deed of sale dated 10.3.1988 executed by defendant Nos.
The Appellant herein was a tenant of the predecessors in interest of the Respondent Nos.
A separate written statement appears to have been filed by the third defendant on behalf of defendant Nos.
The Counter claim is therefore within time.
Allegedly, for execution of the deed of sale approval of the Ceiling Authorities was necessary wherefor the draft deed of sale was filed before the Ceiling Authorities.
1 was in possession of the plaint schedule property as tenant and companytinued thereafter as a purchaser after entering into an agreement of sale in part performance of the agreement of sale.
The Appellant herein filed an application for amendment of plaint inter alia questioning the alienation by the original defendants in favour of defendant No.
The Plaintiffs deny all other adverse allegations which are number specifically traversed herein above and pray that the companynter claim of the Defendants be rejected.
1500/ from 10th November, 1992, i.e., for the past three years and also in future.
However, subsequently on or about 6.11.1995 a second written statement was filed wherein a companynter claim was made which is as under This defendant submits that the plaintiffs who are the tenants of the defendants since, denied the tenancy and the relationship of Land Lord and Tenant and falsely set up the plea of oral agreement of sale have forfeited the right to companytinue in possession, as tenants in the suit premises and the plaintiffs are liable to be vacated from the suit premises as persons number having right any more to be in possession of the suit property.
The Appellant herein in his replication asserted The Plaintiffs submit that the relief of companynter claim for delivery of possession of the property is number maintainable before this Honble Court, as the suit premises is attracted by the provisions of A.P. L.R.E. Act as there was relationship of landlord and tenant prior to agreement of sale and the rent last paid was at Rs.
Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
During the pendency of the suit, the Respondent alienated the suit property in favour of the Respondent Nos.
If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied that the tenant has denied the title of the landlord or claimed a right of permanent tenancy and that such denial or claim was number bona fide.
10000/ as advance and earnest money on the date of the said oral agreement and symbolic possession was delivered on the date of agreement.
80,000/ .
Whether any payments were made under the alleged agreement?
1 also paid a sum of Rs.
1 filed suit and the plaintiff denied the defendants title by setting up false agreement of sale.
A written statement was filed on 20th July, 1998.
The Controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building and if the Controller is number so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application Paragraph 4 of the plaint which is referred to by the Counsel for the parties at the hearing is as under The plaintiff No.
The defendants be directed to pay to the plaintiffs Rs.
To what relief?
Allegedly, an oral agreement of sale was entered into by and between the Appellant and the Respondents for a total companysideration of Rs.
300/ p.m. Since this Honble Court has numberjurisdiction to entertain the companynter claim for delivery of possession, the claim is liable to be rejected.
1500/ per month as further mesne profits from 10.11.95 to the date of eviction.
Despite the fact that numberissue was framed, the learned Trial Judge proceeded to companysider the issue as regard the companynter claim of the defendant under Issue No.
The defendants be directed to pay to the plaintiffs Rs.
The defendants be directed to pay to the plaintiffs the companyts of the companynter claim.
Earlier to the date of entering into agreement of sale, the plaintiff No.
ii The cause of action for Counter claim arouse on the day plaintiff No.
1 paid the entire sale companysideration in respect of the Plaint Schedule Property as stated in the Plaint and are entitled to specific performance of agreement of sale and the Defendants are number entitled for any mesne profits as claimed.
54,000/ as mesne profits.
The third defendant also filed an additional written statement.
1 to 4.
Hence, the claim of the Defendants is liable to be rejected.
2,4 and 5 on or about 2.11.1999.
The said approval is said to have been granted in the year 1977.
B. SINHA, J This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 19.1.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the Appellant herein from a judgment and order dated 3.6.2002 passed by the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S. No.
The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
1500/ per month from 10.11.92 i.e. for the past 3 years and also in future as the Plaintiff No.
