K RAGHAVENDRA RAJU Vs. SYED YOUSUF
LAWS(APH)-2005-3-107
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 01,2005

K.RAGHAVENDRA RAJU Appellant
VERSUS
SYED YOUSUF Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DURGA PERIOD VS. DEEP CHAND [REFERRED TO]
RAMJILAL VS. RAM PERSHAD [REFERRED TO]
MAMIDALA SURYAKANTAMMA VS. THUMMALA VENKATACHALAM [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

KULANDAISAMI GOUNDER VS. R SRIKUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-436] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23-11-2004 passed in OS(SR) No.8795 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in returning the plaint filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10-2-1994.
(2.)The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and he instituted the above suit against the respondents-defendants for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10-2-1994 entered into with Defendants 1 to 5 for the sale of agricultural land measuring Ac.0-38 guntas, in Sy.No.110, Ac.1-14 guntas in Sy.No.115, Ac.1-21 guntas in Sy.No.116, and Ac.0-26 guntas in Sy.No.118, total admeasuring Ac.4-19 guntas, situated at Hydernagar Village, Balangar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In the plaint it is alleged that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and after execution of the agreement of sale and after receipt of total sale consideration of Rs.12 lakhs on various dates as mentioned in the plaint, the heirs of late Fathima Bee i.e., Defendants 1 to 6 and the heirs of late Syed Abdul Quader i.e., Defendants 7 to 9 are postponing the execution and registration of sale deed on one pretext or the other with a dishonest intention to make unlawful gain against the plaintiff. It is alleged that after receipt of legal notice dated 26-1-2004 got issued by the plaintiff, it came to light Defendants 4 and 6 have executed the sale deed dated 30-4-2003 in favour of Defendant No. 10 in respect of an extent of Ac.0.11.74 guntas in Sy.No.110 and so also Defendants, 1, 3, 4 and 6 executed an agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 4-4-2003 in favour of Defendant No.10 in respect of another extent of Ac.0.26 guntas in Sy.No.118, which lands are subject-matter of agreement of sale dated 10-2-1994. In view of the same, Defendant No.10 was also impleaded in the suit.
(3.)The plaint was returned by the office of the Court below with the following objections:
(1) How the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance in respect of suit schedule property with seeking the declaration that the Defendants 4 and 6 executed registered sale deed in favour of Defendant No.10 and execution of GPA-cum-agreement of sale in favour of Defendant No.10? (2) How the suit is within time? On being re-presented the plaint, the Court beiow passed the impugned order.



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