BEEMANENI MAHA LAKSHMI versus GANGUMALLA APPA RAO (SINCE DEAD) BY LRS.

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 490 · Decided: 09-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
BEEMANENI MAHA LAKSHMI
v.
GANGUMALLA APPA RAO (SINCE DEAD) BY LRS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4537-4538 of 2017)
MAY 09, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Specific performance: Agreement to sell – Execution of, by
appellant-vendor in favour of respondent-vendee for a sale
consideration – Payment of part consideration by the respondent
and remaining amount was to be paid within three months – Appellant
agreed to execute the sale deed after measuring the suit land –
However, respondent did not supply the original sale deed as also
the order of the tribunal that appellant is holding an excess land –
Suit by respondent for decree for specific performance of the
agreement to sell and in the alternative refund of advance of sale
consideration with interest – Suit decreed by the trial court directing
the appellant to execute a sale deed in favour of the respondent –
Decree upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held: Courts below
rightly held that it was the appellant who did not perform her part
of the contract – Failure on the part of the respondent to demonstrate
that he was having sufficient money with him to pay the balance
sale consideration under the agreement by the date of his evidence
not much of consequence – Even otherwise the respondent deposited
the entire balance sale consideration as directed by the trial court
– It cannot be said that the respondent was not ready and willing to
perform his part of the contract – It is to be considered that as and
when respondent was called upon to make the deposit, he deposited
the amount to show his bonafides or not – Furthermore, appellant
cannot be permitted to raise plea on hardship – Thus, the decree
for specific performance of the agreement to sell by the courts below,
upheld.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On facts, till the land was measured and the
final amount was arrived at, there was no obligation on the part of
the vendee-plaintiff to deposit/pay the balance sale consideration.
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 490
490
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
491
It is required to be considered along with the fact that all
throughout the vendee was insisting that the original sale deed
in favour of the vendor be given to the vendee and that the final
certificate issued by the tribunal be shown and given to the
vendee. It is an admitted position that copy of the sale deed was
not given to the vendee. However, it was the case on behalf of
the defendant-vendor that the plaintiff was informed that the
original sale deed is produced in the court in the proceedings
initiated by the YS predecessor-in-title and therefore, the vendee
may get the copy from that court. Nothing is on record on which
date the vendor delivered to the vendee the land ceiling papers.
The land in question was subjected to the land ceiling proceedings.
The vendor-defendant purchased the suit property by sale deed
dated 6.10.1971 from YS the husband of the sister of the vendor.
From the evidence, it appears that YS was also claiming the
ownership over the land in question. Dispute was that YS executed
the sale deed in favour of the defendant-vendor with a view to
see that the land is not declared as excess land under the Land
Ceiling Act. It has come on record that the tribunal held in favour
of the vendor and the transaction in her favour was found to be
bonafide. However, the said YS was also continued to claim the
ownership which was not accepted by the land Tribunal. That is
why, the vendee- plaintiff was insisting to deliver the land ceiling
papers. The conduct on the part of the plaintiff-vendee to insist
for the original sale deed in favour of the vendor and the delivery
of the land ceiling papers was natural. Any prudent person who
was to purchase the property would definitely insist for the title
papers, so as to be satisfied that the title is clear. Before the trial
court, the defendant did not produce any final order/certificate
issued by the land tribunal, which came to be produced for the
first time before the High Court along with the application for
additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The High
Court permitted the appellant to produce the proceedings of the
tribunal. The same came to be considered by the High Court.
That on appreciation of evidence and considering the document
Ex. B1-copy of a certified copy of the order of the Land Reforms
Tribunal, the High Court has specifically observed that it cannot
positively be said that the origin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.