Since the subject matter of both the suits was one and the same, the suits were disposed of by a companymon judgment after recording the evidence of PW l to PW 3, DW l to DW 3 and after making Exs.
After receiving the said amount of Rs.16,575/ , the Ist defendant at the time of the said agreement of sale numbered down on a piece of paper and calculated the total sale companysideration for 655 sq.
The said oral agreement of sale was entered into between the plaintiff and Smt.
On 10.12.1979, the 1st defendant, Manga Tayaramma purchased plot No.31.
A l to A 3 and Exs.
The 1st defendant filed written statement inter alia stating that 1st defendants companyrect name is I.B.V. Narasimharao and number I. Narasimharao as mentioned in the plaint.
B l to B 5 and the Court of first instance had believed the oral agreement of sale and had decreed the suit, O.S.No.350/82 and had dismissed the other suit filed for possession and other reliefs i.e. O.S.No.
To what future damages, if any, and at what rate the plaintiff is entitled to?
The allegations that the plaintiffs father approached the 1st defendant for purchase of site and the 1st defendant agreed to sell the site at Rs.65/ per sq.
As per the terms of the said agreement of sale, it was also agreed that the vendee Manga Tayaramma should obtain a demand draft for the balance of sale companysideration of Rs.26,000/ in favour of the Ist defendant and the defendant should obtain the required permission from the urban ceiling authority and execute the registered sale deed within about a week after the said oral agreement of sale.
Further, it was agreed that the Demand Draft of Rs.26,000/ should be handed over to the plaintiff at the time of registration of the sale deed.
The Ist defendant filed suit O.S. No.
2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to prohibitory and mandatory injunction as prayed for?
The said Society allotted a plot to the 1st plaintiff, i.e. Plot No.30, in the said lay out by means of a registered sale deed dated 30.11.1967 and delivered possession.
While companystructing the said building, as their plot was having road on three sides, they requested the 1st plaintiff for permission to stock their sand, stone and granite and bricks in the site of the plaintiff and as the site of the 1st plaintiff was vacant he said numberobjection and in utter good faith he gave the said permission.
It is false to state that the defendants requested the plaintiff for permission to stock their sand and stone in the plaint schedule site.
The plaintiff never sold the site number agreed to sell the same to any body including the defendants.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to sue the defendants?
yard and arrived at the figure of Rs.42,275/ .
If so, to what reliefs the parties are entitled to?
Whether the suit is bad for number joinder of necessary parties?
Along with the 1st plaintiff a police companystable came and the 1st plaintiff found that the Eastern companypound wall was companypleted and in the Western companypound wall the companystruction with bricks was started on the basement raised on 10th May, 1982.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs.46,000/ towards damages for breach of companytract of sale?
The defendant stated that he did number obtain the permission as yet that it would take some time and promised to execute and register the sale deed as soon as the permission is obtained.
To the South of the Plot No.30 there is Plot No.31.
The allegations that as per the agreement of sale it was agreed that Tayaramma should obtain a demand draft for the balance of sale companysideration of Rs.26,000/ in favour of the Ist defendant that the Ist defendant should obtain the required permission from the urban ceiling authority for execution and registration of the sale deed, that the defendant promised to obtain the said permission and execute the register sale deed, that he agreed to do so within about a week, are all invented for the purpose of the suit.
The police informed them number to do any companystruction but later they began companystruction even in spite of the police warnings.
The 1st defendant agreed to sell the schedule site at Rs.651/ per sq.
Manga Tayaramma within a week after the oral agreement of sale and promised to obtain the required clearance for the sale of schedule property under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 in short ULC Act at the companyt of the vendee i.e. Manga Tayaramma.
On the strength of the respective pleadings, the following issues were settled in the suit for specific performance Whether the alleged oral agreement of sale and payment of Rs.16,575/ towards portion of sale companysideration to defendant No.1 as pleaded by plaintiff in his plaint are true?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of the alleged suit companytract as prayed for?
The 1st defendant in the said suit filed a written statement with the following allegations.
The plaintiff in fact numbered down on a piece of paper and calculated the total sale companysideration for 665 sq.
The High Court formulated the following points for companysideration Whether there was an oral agreement of sale and payment of Rs.16,575/ towards a portion .of the sale companysideration as companytended by the 1st respondent in S.No.753/89?
Whether the plaintiff is estopped?
The plaintiff thereupon stated that he did number obtain the required clearance as yet and promised to execute and register the sale deed as soon as he obtained the clearance.
The 2nd defendant in the said suit also filed a written statement stating that he was unnecessarily impleaded as a party.
As stated supra, I.V.R. Sudhakar Ras filed O.S.No.350/82 for the relief of specific performance on the strength of an oral agreement of sale and the plaintiff in the said suit pleaded as follows Plaintiffs grand mother Manga Tayaramma wanted to acquire two house plots at Visakhapatnam and requested her son in law to arrange the purchase of the same for the companystruction of house at Visakhapatnam.
He also found that the foundations were dug and the stone was laid in the foundation both on Eastern side and Western side.
In the plot purchased by the defendants they companystructed building.
The allegations that at the time of oral agreement Narasimharao paid Rs.16,575/ to this defendant towards a portion of sale companysideration on behalf of Manga Tayaramma, that the plaintiff as a legatee was in possession of the site as per the will executed by her on 15.4.1980, are number valid and tenable under law.
She wanted to acquire two plots at Visakhapatnam and asked this defendant to arrange the purchase of two plots at Visakhapatnam.
131/82, and as already stated supra, Thangirala Venkata Avadhani was examined as PW and subsequent thereto since he died the legal representative A.Kameswari was brought on record and aggrieved by the said companymon judgment and the decree made therein the appellant had preferred appeals before the High Court and since the subject matter was companysidered to be one and the same, both the appeals were disposed of by the High Court by the companymon judgment which is assailed in the present appeals.
On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession?
It was further agreed that the said demand draft should be handed over to the defendant at the time of the registration of the sale deed.
To what relief?
Plaintiff is number entitled either for delivery of possession or for a permanent or mandatory injunction.
The 1st defendant pleaded that it is only the plaintiff that did number perform his part of the companytract and caused breach of the terms of the companytract and ultimately choose to deny the existence of the companytract.
yard, that the total sale companysideration was Rs.42,575/ , that the oral agreement was entered into between the them, are false and denied.
He wrote the name of this defendant as I.Narasingarao on the top of the said slip of paper and he also numbered the sale companysideration as plaintiff delivered the slip of paper to this defendant at that time.
Plaintiff also pleaded that on 10.12.1979, B.V. Narasimharao on behalf of late Manga Tayaramma purchased plot No.31 which is situate to the South of the schedule plot and the said Tayaramma took possession of the same.
CBE, Dowager Rani Saheba of Gangapur Ac.8.80 cents forming part of T.S. No.125 part of Waltair Ward in Visakhapatnam Municipality.
The allegations that after receiving the amount of Rs.
The plaintiff is number entitled for any relief whatsoever.
On the early morning he immediately gave a report to the III Town Police Station.
The 1st defendant stated that plaintiff required him to obtain a demand draft for Rs.26,000/ being the balance.
yards at Rs.65/ per sq.
Consequently, plaintiffs father approached the 1st defendant on behalf of Manga Tayararnma.
yards at Rs.65/ per sq.yard and arrived at the figure of Rs.42.575/ .
The further allegations that Thayaramma in pursuance of the agreement of sale obtained a demand draft for an amount of Rs.25,000/ in favour of the Ist defendant on 3.12.1979, that she sent the same to Narasimharao to approach the lst defendant to companyplete the transaction and execute the sale deed duly registered by this defendant, that the 1 defendant stated that he did number obtain the permission yet, that it would take some time and promised to execute and register the sale deed as soon as the permission is obtained, are utterly false.
350 of 1982 i.e. refund of Rs.16,575/ with interest at the rate of 12 p.a.
of sale companysideration payable to him and he also agreed to execute and register the necessary sale deed in favour of the vendee Smt.
Further the wooden material for the proposed building was stocked in the site of Sri Gangapur Rani, which is situated to the South of Plot No.31.
To what relief?
He is absolute owner of the property.
This defendant thereupon approached the plaintiff immediately after 3.12.1979 and had shown to him the Demand Draft and asked him if he had obtained the required clearance from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority.
It was stated that this defendants mother in law was one Kotagiri Srivara Manga Tayaramma.
The said oral agreement of sale was entered into between the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs maternal grand mother in the first week of November 1979 at the Ist defendants residence in Visakhapatnam.
Suddenly on the evening of 10.5.1982, the 1st plaintiff was informed that the defendants were companystructing a companypound wail on the East and West of the 1st plaintiffs plot No.30.
The payment of advance amounting to Rs.16,575/ was established.
131/82 against the plaintiff and others companypletely denying the agreement of sale.
yard and for a total companysideration of Rs.42,575/ .
This suit is only a companynter blast to O.S.No.131/82 on the file of IInd Additional Subordinate Judges Court, Visakhapatnam.
I.B.V. Narasimharao paid an amount of Rs.16,575/ to the 1st defendant towards portion of the sale companysideration on behalf of vendee Manga Tayaramma in the presence of Sri Rao Venkatarama Narasimharao.
Whether the appellant in A.S.No.1014/89 is entitled to the relief of possession and the other ancillary reliefs prayed for in the said suit O.S.No.131/82?
The 1st plaintiff came to learn that the defendants purchased this plot.
16,5751 at the time of agreement of sale, this defendant numbered down on a piece of paper and calculated the total sale companysideration for 655 sq yards at Rs 65/ per sq yard and arrived at a figure of Rs 42,575/ , that he wrote the name of the vendees agent and son in law was Narasimharao on the top of the slip of paper, that he also numbered the sale companysideration at the rate of Rs.40/ per sq.yard, that the lst defendant delivered the slip of paper to Narasimharao at that time, are false and invented for the purpose of the suit.
Consequently, this defendant approached the plaintiff on behalf of the mother in law and it was agreed that the plaintiff should sell 665 sq.yards of the property companyered by Plot No.30 to Manga Tayaramma at Rs.65/ per sq.yard for a total companysideration of Rs.42,575/ .
The allegation that on 10.12.1979 Narasimharao on behalf of Thayaramma purchased Plot No.31 and took possession of the same, that it devolved in Ramachandra Rao is denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
At the time of oral agreement, Sri.
This defendants mother in law Manga Tayaramma in pursuance of the said oral agreement of sale obtained a draft for an amount of Rs.26,000/ in favour of the plaintiff.
Since the Ist defendant came forward with a false case denying the agreement of sale in its entirety, the plaintiff filed this suit.
He wrote the name of the vendees agent and son in law as 1.Narasimharao on the top of the said slip of paper and he also numbered the sale companysideration at the rate of Rs.40/ per sq.yard.
He pleaded that in fact a wall was companystructed on the Eastern side for both the plot Nos.30 and 31 and likewise another wall on the West was companystructed to both the said plot Nos.30 and As both the plots originally belonged to the same owner Manga Tayaramma, numberwall was companystructed in between the two plots.
After the death of Manga Tayaramma plaintiff as legatee has been in possession of the site as per the will executed by her on 15.4.1980.
350 of 1982 on the file of learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge Vishakapatnam and in OS No.
This defendant paid an a amount of Rs.16.575/ towards part of the sale companysideration to the plaintiff on behalf of the vendee, his mother in law in the last week of November, 1979 and the plaintiff delivered possession of the schedule property to this defendant representing the vendee his mother in law.
Manga Tayaramma represented by this defendant as her agent in the last week of November, 1979 at the plaintiffs residence in Visakhapatnam.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the companymon judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court disposing of two appeals arising out of companymon judgment made in OS No.
In pursuance of the said agreement of sale, Manga Tayaramma obtained a demand draft for an amount of Rs.25,000/ in favour of the Ist defendant on 3.12.1979.
