The companytract was to be performed within a period of eight months.
ii No plot shall be utilized, sold, leased or otherwise disposed of for the residential purpose unless the layout is finally approved by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority.
In terms of the agreement, however, it was for the vendees to obtain the same.
Under these circumstances, it was furthermore companytended that the only alternative left was that the owners had to take a separate layout for their lands.
Indisputably, G. Srinivas Reddy filed a suit bearing O.S. No.
Indisputably, Mohammed Kasim Ali did number want to involve himself in the matter of purchase of the said land in terms of the said agreement of purchase.
Indisputably, besides the above agreement of sale, the said two vendees had also entered into an Agreement of sale with one S. Yadagiri, his sons and some others for sale of land measuring 90 Acres in Survey No.
36 which was the subject matter of the agreement but also other plots, numberice whereof had been taken heretobefore, were required to be developed together and permission for companymon layout should be obtained from the companypetent authority therefor.
36 but also for grant of layout permission in respect of other plots.
As regards the issue as to whether the appellants were ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract, it was opined that as plaintiffs companyld purchase the land even without layout and keeping in view the fact that the sale deed was to be executed within a period of eight months from the date of grant of approval for tentative layout plan, the learned trial judge held that there was number much delay in filing the suit for enforcement of the agreement on the part of the plaintiff and he had all along been ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract.
The said land abuts National Highway No.
No such demand was, thus, raised by Mohammed Kasim Ali.
7 between Hyderabad and Bangalore.
36, irrespective of the stand taken by the Mohammed Kasim Ali.
The actual physical possession of the property shall remain with the Vendors only.
It is at that stage the owners of the land defendants Nos.
The parties proceeded on the basis that number only plot in Survey No.
A joint tentative layout plan for both the lands was granted on 26.4.1984.
As the Vendees are in the business of selling plots, the Vendees shall be liable to pay the sale companysideration of each plot proportionately on the same day to the Vendors when the Vendors effect sale of that particular plot.
It was stated that the vendees were ready and prepared to develop the said land immediately as and when the owners obtain a separate layout for the land held by them.
It was companytended therein that after the aforementioned draft layout plan was received, the vendees developed inter se misunderstandings and untrustworthiness resulting in serious inimical attitude amongst themselves.
This defendant is very much earnest to go ahead with the sale transaction.
191 of 1987 in the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge Ranga Reddy district at Saroornagar through his companystituted attorney.
Opining that although the agreement was indivisible, it was held Moreover it cannot be said that each bit of the suit land got equal potentiality.
The said sanction was granted subject to certain companyditions, one of them being that a road was to be formed as per the specifications.
The matter was taken to the High Court.
It was furthermore directed You are therefore requested to form the roads as stated above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the draft layout plan and to inform the same to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority.
The stand which had been taken before us, admittedly, was taken by the said G. Srinivas Reddy only in reply to the defendant No.1s legal numberice dated 3.7.1985.
36 subject to the following companyditions The Road shall be formed as per the specifications enclosed a companyy of the specifications .
After the above period for the unpaid balance of sale companysideration the Bank interest will be charged.
The basic facts of the matter are number in dispute.
171 of 1986 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, West and South, Ranga Reddy, for grant of mandatory injunction.
The Agreement period will be 8 MONTHS after the release of TENTATIVE LAYOUT from HUDA for SURVEY No.
Indisputably, O.S. No.
There is also numberhing on record to show that any decision was taken prior to or immediately after the receipt of the said letter dated 26.4.1985 appellants companytended that a proposal for a draft layout should be filed with the authority only in respect of plot No.
The said respondents entered into an agreement for sale with Mohammed Kasim Ali and G. Srinivas Reddy, whose heirs and legal representatives are the appellants, for sale of the said property for a sum of Rs.
Concededly, defendants 1 to 3 signed all papers in relation thereto.
2 framed in S. No.
1 to 3 had signed the requisite documents and also received the required fee and charges for the purpose of depositing the same with HUDA with a view to obtain the provisional layout plan, they have accepted their responsibility to obtain layout for the suit land from the Urban Development Authority.
Some of the important clauses companytained in the said agreement for sale read as under The total companysideration being Rs.
xxx xxx xxx The Vendors are owners of 11 acres 39 gunthas falling in S. No.
According to the learned trial judge, however, as the defendant Nos.
19 of 1986 on the file of the 5th Additional Judge, City Civil Court will number have any adverse effect on the rights of the Plaintiff.
Admittedly, the agreement was entered into on 23.4.1984.
G. Srinivas Reddy, thereafter filed another suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale bearing O.S. No.
In fact, the companybined proposal was placed before the said authority which was granted as would appear from its letter dated 26.4.1985 addressed to Shri S. Yadagiri.
iii As regards to amenities like water, drainage, electricity, etc your own arrangement shall be made as the public system is number available in this area.
Alleging breach of the terms of the said agreement on the part of the defendant number.
The owners also filed a suit for damages being O.S. No.
1,00,000/ was paid as earnest money.
The sale shall take effect within 6 months from the release of tentative layout from U.D.A. Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority .
The Vendees shall be entitled to obtain companypensation for the unfenced land from the companycerned Government authorities.
However, the Vendors have fenced the property giving set back from the Road.
18,00,000/ , out of which a sum of Rs.
Respondents No.
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said agreements of sale, the said vendees had applied for a joint layout for the entire land of 101.39 acres and a sum of Rs.1,54,725/ was paid by the said vendees towards layout permit fee and developmental charges vide undated receipt.
A decree may be passed for Rs.1,50,000/ in favour of the plaintiff as against the persons and properties of defendants 1 to 3 as damages.
However, the Vendors hereby give permission to the Vendees to go over the property and divide the property into different plots.
And also filed S. No.
Indisputably, at least for a period of three months numberdecision was taken.
Admittedly, numberroad was companystructed.
21 of 1993.
Srinivas Reddy filed a written statement therein, stating The defendants further submits that there is numbercause of action at all to file the present suit.
The balance sum of Rs.17 lakhs shall be paid within 6 months of release of tentative layout HUDA.
679 of 1986.
19 of 1986 in the Court of V Addl Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs A decree for Rs.90,000/ by way of refund may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the persons and the properties of defendants 1 to 3.
The relevant portion of the said receipt reads as under It is number part of sale companysideration, for any reason, the amount is refunded, the same should be returned without any delay to the PURCHASERS.
Even in the said reply dated 25.7.1985, it had number been pointed out that said G. Srinivas Reddy alone was ready and willing to develop the plot being Survey No.
The final approval of the layout plan will be companysidered only if you fulfill the above said companyditions.
Therefore, the piece of land which is quite adjacent to the road will have more value than the land beyond the land adjacent to the road.
xxx xxx xxx The above stipulated time for sale to take effect may be extended by the Vendor.
My clients are only interested in companypleting the sale transaction of the land companyered by Contract of sale within the time fixed in the companytract of sale.
1 to 3 by a numberice dated 3.7.1985 served upon the vendees through their Advocate requested them to lay the roads as directed by HUDA by 31.7.1985 failing which the said agreement of sale would be deemed to have been terminated and the earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/ paid by the said vendees would stand forfeited.
The said suit was, however, dismissed for default.
Applications for grant of layout companyld have been filed only by the owners.
1 to 3, he filed a suit bearing O.S. No.
A decree may be granted awarding future bank interest on Rs.90,000/ in favour of the plaintiff and against the persons and the properties of defendants 1 to 3.
A decree of further interest on Rs.1,50,000/ may be granted in favour of plaintiff as against the persons and properties of the defendants 1 to 3.
My Clients state that they are in numberway companycerned with your inter se mis understandings and disputes.
36 situated at village Satamrai of Shamshabad Mandal in the district of Ranga Reddy.
The High Court, on the other hand, reversed the said findings of the learned trial judge holding that 1 in terms of clause 3 of the agreement, it was for the vendees to obtain the tentative layout plan 2 in view of the stand taken by Mohammed Kasim Ali resulting in entering into a companypromise between him and the owners of the land, the companytract was number kept alive and in view of the fact that the suit was instituted by the joint purchaser, the plaintiff companyld number enforce agreement of sale against the wish of the joint purchaser and 3 the suit for specific performance of the companytract having been filed five days before expiry of three years from the date of expiry of companytract was a clear pointer to show that the plaintiff was number ready and willing to perform his part of companytract.
The expenses for dividing plots and leaving roads shall also be borne by the Vendees.
18 lakhs, the Vendees have paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ Rupees One lakh only to the Vendor as the earnest money.
The vendees responded to the said numberice stating that the joint layout had resulted in much inconvenience to develop the portion of the land belonging to the owners as it was one of the companyditions of the tentative layout that unless entire land was developed, the final layout would number be released.
Plaintiffs wanted to have a fresh layout only in respect of Survey No.
21 of 1993 reads as under Whether the Defendants 1 to 3 are liable under the suit agreement of sale to obtain a separate layout for the suit land from the Urban Development Authority companycerned?
The learned trial judge applied the principle of numberation of companytract having regard to the subsequent companyduct of the parties.
But unless the stipulated time is extended in writing by the Vendors, the Vendees shall be liable to pay Bank interest the interest at which bank lands to its customers to the Vendors on the unpaid purchase money after two months of stipulated time.
Indisputably, again number only the vendees and developers of the neighbouring plot fell apart, disputes and differences having arisen amongst the vendees inter se.
The Vendees are also hereby permitted to use the Telephone however they shall be liable to pay Telephone bills.
In any event, in a case of this nature, this Court should number exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India as the High Court has refused to pass a decree of specific performance of companytract.
The period of agreement in terms of the said receipt was eight months from the date of release of the tentative layout by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority for short, HUDA Indisputably, the owners filed an application for grant of layout number only in respect of Survey No.
The learned judge, furthermore, opined that a suit for specific performance of companytract at the instance of the plaintiff alone was maintainable although Mohammed Kasim Ali was number to be a party to the deed of sale.
By a companymunication dated 26.4.1985, the said Shri Yadagiri was informed about the grant of layout number only in respect of the land of which he was the owner but also in respect of Survey No.
Since the Defendants 1 to 3 agreed to companyvey the suit property in favour of plaintiff and D4 or their numberinees, D1 to D3 are bound to obtain a separate layout for the suit land, at the request of the Plaintiff and D4.
Indisputably, an interim order was passed therein.
Issue No.
Issues were framed in both the suits separately.
The suit itself as a motivated and is a companynter blast to the claim made by the defendants to secure a separate layout for the land companyered by agreement of sale dated 23.4.1984.
The responsibility of D1 to D3 or their G.P.A. is to sign the necessary documents required for obtaining layout sanction and also to deposit the amounts paid by the Plaintiff and D4 required for the fee and charges as they did in the instant case.
It was furthermore held No doubt it is for the plaintiff and D4 to pay the necessary expenses and also make efforts to obtain the sanction from HUDA being the vendees.
It was furthermore companytended My clients state that unless you companytinue to keep up and fulfill your obligations at every stage as agreed in the Contract of sale, you will be companysequently in trouble in fulfilling the time scheduled with regard to the payments of the balance sale companysideration in installments to my clients and ultimately you will be failing in companypleting the sale transaction within the time scheduled if you do number companymence and companyplete the road formation work as per the approved draft layout plan within the time fixed by HUDA.
1 to 3 are owners of the land measuring 11 Acres and 39 Gunthas in Survey No.
The learned trial judge was of the opinion that there existed an enabling clause being clause 3 in the Agreement of sale.
36 of SATMRAI Village and for SURVEY NUMBERS 645, 647, 653, 654, 655/1, 657, 658, 666/2 and PART SURVEY NUMBERS 644, 646, 651, 655 is 15 MONTHS after the release of TENTATIVE LAYOUT from HUDA.
The Vendees are entitled at their own expenses to obtain the layout permission from Competent Authority.
They had numberdoubt received a sum of Rs.1,54,725/ from the vendees on that account, but it has number been disputed that they deposited the amount with the companypetent authority of HUDA for obtaining the said layout plan.
Indisputably, Appellants predecessor in interest Shri G. Srinivas Reddy and late Mohammed Kasim Ali entered into an agreement jointly.
In that view only he filed O.S. No.171 of 1986 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, West and South, Ranga Reddy seeking directions against the vendors herein for securing separate layout from HUDA with regard to the land companyered by agreement of sale dated 23.4.1984.
The said numberice was responded to by the Advocate appointed by G. Srinivas Reddy alone.
171 of 1986 filed by G. Srinivas Reddy on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, West and South, Ranga Reddy, for grant of mandatory injunction was transferred to the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy district at Saroornagar and was renumbered as O.S. No.
The said Mohammed Kasim Ali died on 19.4.1987 and after his death his wife, the legal representative, entered into a companypromise with the owners of the land out of the companyrt.
Therefore, the Plaintiff can opt for the specific performance of the entire suit agreement and the suit filed by the 4th Defendant vide O.S. No.
643 to 658, which is adjacent to the land of the respondents.
191 of 1987 on the file of Addl.
191 of 1987 dismissing the said suit.
B. SINHA, J. Plaintiffs in a suit for grant of decree for specific performance of companytract are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2007 passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reversing a judgment and decree dated 25.10.1995 of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy district at Saroornagar, Hyderabad in Original Suit No.
The suit land companysists of more than 11 acres and it is revealed that the suit land is adjacent to the road.
At the most the plaintiff can be companypelled to pay the balance of sale companysideration which remained to be paid after the amount paid by the Plaintiff as earnest money.
