655 of 1992 directing the appellant herein to execute and register the sale deed in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 19.8.1991 in favour of the respondent herein and deliver possession of the plaint schedule property to her within the prescribed time.
to her.
The only point for companysideration in this appeal is whether the trial Court is justified in granting decree for specific performance in respect of the suit property and the High Court is right in affirming the same by dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant.
When the respondent demanded the amount, the appellant showed her inability to pay the said amount and she made proposal to the respondent to join as a partner in the proposed partnership firm to be companymenced by her.
12/23 in favour of the appellant herein.
Whether the plaintiff is number entitled for the discretionary relief of specific performance?
Whether the suit sale agreement has stood rescinded and cancelled as pleaded by the defendant ?
As mentioned earlier, both parties are related, namely, the plaintiff is the paternal aunt of the defendant.
Whether the plaintiff and her son were exercising their undue influence over the defendant and her husband in companynection with the suit transaction?
In the sale agreement, numberspecific period was mentioned to register the document in favour of the plaintiff.
The short facts leading to the filing of the above appeal as stated in the S.L.P. are as under On 06.11.1957, the grand father of the appellant herein settled an extent of Acres 0.62 cents of vacant land situated in Vidhyadahara puram, Vijaywada with old demarcation No.
Against the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned single Judge, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
On 8.2.2000, the trial Court decreed the suit and the defendant was directed to execute and register the sale deed within the time prescribed in the order.
B2 dated 30.08.1986 was executed wherein the defendant agreed to sell her certain lands which remained unsold.
At that stage, the appellant had executed an agreement of sale in favour of the respondent on 19.8.1991 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property to the respondent for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ in lieu of discharge of amount.
B2 to B5 support the same.
On 19.10.2006, the learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal suit.
It is the definite case of the plaintiff that in the said document, it is clearly recited that the defendant had received the entire companysideration on instalment basis and further recited that the companysideration was moved from the plaintiff to the defendant.
The respondent responded to the numberice through her advocate denying any liability of making the payment of Rs.50,000/ and that time cannot be made the essence of the companytract.
To what relief?
Though the defendant had denied execution of all the documents including the suit agreement of sale as rightly pointed out by the High Court, D.W.1 in her evidence has specifically stated that she received Rs.1.00 lakh from the plaintiff out of the total sale price of Rs.1,50,000/ .
It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of a settlement deed executed by her grand father on 06.11.1957 and the same is in her possession and enjoyment.
Whether the plaintiff companyplied her part of the companytract against the defendant?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to companyts awarded in the suit?
At this stage, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had executed an agreement to sell in her favour on 19.08.1991 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property.
from 30.8.1986 and have the sale executed and registered.
The respondent herein filed suit for specific performance of companytract of sale based on the sale agreement dated 19.8.1991.
725 of 2000 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Section 96 CPC.
A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the plaintiff, whereas the defendant herself was examined as W.1 besides examining D.Ws 2 and 3 and marking documents Exh.
Though execution of the agreement dated 19.08.1991 was admitted, it was stated that she innocently executed the said agreement in favour of the plaintiff at the instance of plaintiffs son Kanakarao and plaintiff.
725 of 2000 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein under Section 96 of the C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 8.2.2000 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in O.S. No.
Instead of paying the amount to the plaintiff, the defendant requested her to join as a partner in the proposed partnership firm to be companymenced by her.
It is relevant to point out that because both the plaintiff and defendant are related, an agreement Exh.
19.08.1991?
B1 dated 25.09.1988 in and by which both agreed to do business in partnership by companystructing apartments and sell them to third parties and share profits equally.
19.08.1991 is devoid of companysideration as pleaded by the defendant?
It was also her case that neither the defendant number her husband ever borrowed any amount for any purpose from the plaintiff or her son.
By judgment and decree dated 08.02.2000, on companysideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge accepted the case of the plaintiff and granted decree for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 19.08.1991.
The respondent accepted for the same and the understanding between them came into writing in the year 1988.
Heard Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. I. Venkatanarayana, learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondent.
B1 to B6.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein filed Appeal Suit No.
She denied all the documents such as agreement dated 30.06.1986, partnership deed dated 25.09.1988 as well as agreement dated 19.08.1991 and special Power of Attorney deed dated 19.08.1991.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 19.10.2006 in Appeal Suit No.
The defendant, in her written statement, admitted that the plaintiff is the wife of the defendants senior paternal uncle.
Since the plaintiff and defendant are related, the defendant had agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
They also entered into partnership under a partnership deed Exh.
However, since the project was number materialized, D.W.1 executed the suit agreement of sale Exh.
On 10.8.1992, the appellant got issued a numberice demanding the balance amount of Rs.50,000/ with interest 18 p.a.
The learned Single Judge determined the following issues for companysideration Whether the defendant executed Ex.
725 of 2000 in the High Court.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree of the trial Court, the defendant filed an appeal being A.S. No.
The defendant had borrowed amount from the plaintiff for her family expenses and other purposes from time to time up to an extent of Rs.1,50,000/ .
Again, the respondent demanded the money.
Before the trial Court, namely, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, three witnesses were examined as P.Ws 1 to 3 and Exh.
The appellant had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of her son permitting him to execute the sale deed on her behalf.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the plaint schedule property?
A 1 agreement of sale having received the entire sale companysideration as mentioned therein?
However, she cancelled the sale deed on 06.08.1992 without informing the respondent.
After analyzing the evidence let in by both parties and the judgment of the trial Court, the High Court accepted the companyclusion and companyfirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the defendant.
With the above pleadings, the Principal Senior Judge settled the following issues for trial Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the agreement of sale dt.
However, the firm was dissolved before its formation.
On the other hand, it was mentioned that whenever the plaintiff made a demand to register the document, the defendant has to register the same.
Whether the suit sale agreement dt.
It was her further case that in spite of several demands, the defendant failed to companyply with the same which necessitated her to file a suit for specific performance and for possession of the plaint schedule property.
The appellant and her husband had borrowed amounts from the respondent herein from time to time for family expenses and other purposes which came to Rs.1,50,000/ .
When the plaintiff had demanded the said amount from the defendant, she companyveyed her inability to pay the same.
She also stated that the plaintiff has to pay the balance of Rs.50,000/ and interest thereon at 18 p.a.
This was accepted by the plaintiff.
48/2A, Revenue Survey No.
