P PURUSHOTHAM REDDY Vs. PRATAP STEELS LTD
LAWS(APH)-1999-8-103
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 19,1999

P.PURUSHOTHAM REDDY Appellant
VERSUS
PRATAP STEELS LTD. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

JENNINGS TRUSTEE V. KING [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR KUMAR V. BALDEV KRISHNA THAPPAR [REFERRED TO]
N.P. THIRUGNANAM V. DR. R. JAGAN MOHAN RAO [REFERRED TO]
KALLATHIL SREEDHARAN V. KOMATH PANDYALA PRASANNA [REFERRED TO]
CHANDNEE WIDYA VATI MADDEN VS. C L KATIAL [FOLLOWED ON]
PREM RAJ VS. D L F HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
OUSEPH VARGHESE VS. JOSEPH ALEY [REFERRED TO]
SANDHYA RANI SARKAR VS. SUDHA RANI DEBI [REFERRED TO]
PARAK UNNAN VEETILL JOSEPHS SON MATHEW VS. NEDUMBARA KURUVILAS SON [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KHADER ROWTHER VS. P K SARA BAI [REFERRED TO]
CHAND RANI VS. KAMAL RANI [REFERRED TO]
S RANGARAJU NAIDU VS. S THIRUVARAKKARASU [REFERRED TO]
P R DEB AND ASSOCIATES SUNANDA ROY VS. SUNANDA ROY:P R DEB AND ASSOCIATES [REFERRED TO]
KANSHI RAM VS. OM PRAKASH JAWAL [REFERRED TO]
HIS HOUNESS ACHARYA SWAMI GANESH DASSJI VS. SITA RAM THAPAR [REFERRED TO]
LOURDU MARI DAVID VS. LOUIS CHINNAYA AROGIASWAMY [REFERRED TO]
K S VIDYANADAM VS. VAIRAVAN [REFERRED TO]
MIRZA WALI KHADER BAIG VS. DEEPAK KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
G ROSAIAH VS. C BALARAMI REDDY [REFERRED TO]
KAMESWARAMMA K VS. K BALARAMAYYA [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR AMARJEET SINGH VS. NANDU BAI [REFERRED TO]
CURRIMBHOY AND CO LTD VS. LACREET [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.V.MARUTHI, J. - (1.)The appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit in OS No. 1159 of 1989 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. The plaintiff M/s. Pratap Steels Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, filed the suit for (1) specific performance of the suit contract by execution of sale within a time to be specified and in default the Court to execute the same or in the alternative to appoint a Receiver on their behalf to execute the sale deed and deliver possession; (2) for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to apply to the Government for permission to sell under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') and to the Income Tax Authorities for permission to convey or to appoint a Receiver to effectuate the same; (3) in the alternative for compensation of Rs.40,25,000/- under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, or any other relief under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act; and (4) compensation with future interest at 12% p.a.
(2.)The plaint averments in brief are that the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property comprising of houses and appurtenant vacant land with a compound wall and offered to sell the same for a total consideration of Rs.40,25,000/-. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the same and paid Rs.51,000/- on 6-3-1986 by a DD No.414143 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Secunderabad; Rs.2,49,000/- vide cheque No,49880, dated 23-9-1986 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Secunderabad; and Rs.3,00,000/- vide cheque No.965258, dated 29-10-1987 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sanathnagar. Rs.51,000/- and Rs.2,49,000/- were received by the 1st defendant and Rs.3,00,000/- were received by the 2nd defendant. On 31-10-1987, a written agreement of sale on a stamp paper was executed. Under the said agreement of sale, it was agreed that a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- be paid before 15-12-1987 and the balance sale consideration of Rs.32,25,000/- be paid to them before the Registering Officer at the time of registration of sale deed. The plaintiff issued two cheques bearing Nos.965073, dated 30-11-1987 and 965646, dated 15-12-1987 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sanathnagar Branch, Hyderabad, for Rs. 1,00,000/- each and the defendants acknowledged the receipt of the same.
(3.)Under the agreement of sale, it is provided that the defendants will, at their own costs and on their own responsibility, if necessary, obtain exemption from the State Government under the provisions of the Act for the entire house property and the surrounding site and also the permission of the competent authority, if necessary, for the house property together with all the buildings standing thereon before 30th June, 1988. It is also provided under clause 7 of the Agreement that the time for obtaining the said exemption and permission will, if necessary, be extended by mutual agreement by both the parties. The defendants shall also obtain income tax certificate to register the sale deed. It was also provided in the agreement that the defendants, within 15 days from obtaining the clearance under the Act, shall intimate the same to the plaintiff and within three months from the date of such intimation the plaintiff shall pay the balance of sale consideration and obtain the sale deed in their favour or their nominees. The plaintiff was ready and willing and was anxious to proceed with the transactions as they were in an urgent need of accommodation. The defendants did not intimate them about making any application for permission or exemption to sell or of the steps or outcome thereof. After serving their purpose with the advance of money received from the plaintiff, the defendants neither moved the Government nor the Income Tax Authorities to obtain necessary clearance for the same. The defendants appear to intend to take advantage of clauses 7 and 9 of the Agreement under which it is provided that in case the defendants are not able to get the Urban Land Ceiling sanction within the original stipulated time or the extended period as may be mutually be agreed, then the amount of advance may be refunded to the plaintiff together with interest at 12% and the agreement shall be avoided. The plaintiff is also willing to extend the time that may really be necessary for obtaining the permission and also to sign the affidavit or petition that may be required in this behalf.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.