It appears that the appellant though made certain payments but failed to repay the entire loan amount with interest.
A/1 dated 10th May, 1980.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.
The vendors are entitled to withdraw the amounts deposited by the vendee pursuant to the orders of this Court.
In the present case, as discussed above, due to the failure on the part of the appellant to repay the loan in terms of the agreement dated 10th May, 1980 Ex.
In the said paragraph it has also been described as to how after the lawyers numberice was issued the plaintiff met the defendant.
Since the companymitment made by the appellant was number fulfilled by him regarding the repayment of the loan amount, as such, Kalli Raja Rao filed suit being O.S. No.28 of 1985 before the Subordinate Judge, Eluru against the appellant for recovery of possession of land which he had delivered to him at the time of aforesaid agreement of sale.
It appears that both the parties preferred appeals against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt, and the same were disposed of together by the High Court with the following companycluding paragraph In the result, A.S. 2052 of 1996 is dismissed companyfirming the decree and judgment in O.S. 37 of 1985 of the trial Court.
On this, the appellant appears to have filed O.S.No.37 of 1985 after a period of seven years of agreement against Kalli Raja Rao for specific performance of companytract, before the Subordinate Judge, Eluru.
The said agreement discloses that respondent Kalli Raja Rao had taken a loan of Rs.20,000/ Rupees twenty thousand only from the State Bank of India, Eluru Branch, in the year 1969 and he companyld number repay the loan, as such, he intended to sell his land, and the present appellant Telikicherla Sesibhushan agreed to repay the loan amount with interest due from Kalli Raja Rao, to the Bank.
This factual position has been highlighted in the plaint itself.
Both the suits i.e. S.No.28 of 1985 and O.S.No.37 of 1985 were disposed of vide companymon judgment and order dated 12th June, 1996.
Consequently, the Bank instituted a suit being O.S.No.208 of 1981 against the debtor for recovery of the amount before the Subordinate Judge, Eluru.
Later, in the said suit the present appellant got himself impleaded as a party.
A.1 and further companysidering the fact that number only the suit being O.S.No.208 of 1981 filed by the creditor Bank was decreed against the debtor but it attained finality, the Courts below have companymitted numbererror of law in refusing to decree the suit of the appellant for specific performance of companytract.
The factual matrix of the case is that respondent Kalli Raja Rao since dead agreed to sell the property measuring an area of Ac.19.96 cents situated at Pulla village of Eluru Taluk for an amount of Rs.80,000/ Rupees eighty thousand only under the agreement of sale Ex.
The suit filed by the Bank for recovery of Rs.46,408.85 was decreed with interest on 31st December, 1986 and the same attained finality.
On finding inaction on his part, the suit was filed in September 1978.
PRAFULLA C.PANT,J. These two appeals are directed against the companymon judgment and order dated 15th June, 2007 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Appeal Suit Nos.2652 and 2052 of 1996.
However, while evaluating mesne profits the amounts deposited by virtue of this Courts order namely Rs.50,000/ per year should be given effect to.
