KOLLI SATYANARAYANA (DEAD) BY LRS. versus VALURIPALLI KESAVA RAO CHOWDARY (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 330 · Decided: 27-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
KOLLI SATYANARAYANA (DEAD) BY LRS.
v.
VALURIPALLI KESAVA RAO CHOWDARY (DEAD)
THR. LRS. AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 1013 of 2014)
SEPTEMBER 27, 2022
[B. R. GAVAI AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ]
Specific performance: Sale agreement – Decree for specific
performance – Time limit specified in the agreement – Significance
of – Held: When the parties prescribe certain time limit for taking
steps by one or the other party, the said time limit cannot be ignored
altogether on the ground that time is not the essence of the contract.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Taking into consideration the fact that the
agreement of sale provided that in the event the permission from
the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976 to sell the suit property was not obtained
within 75 days, the purchaser would be entitled to get back his
advance money paid after 75 days but not later than 90 days under
any circumstances, the findings of the Single Judge of the High
Court cannot be said to be erroneous. After the defendant
terminated the agreement on 12th April 1982 stating therein that
since the permission from the ULC Authorities could not be
obtained, she had cancelled the agreement of sale, the plaintiff
did not take any step till 19th February 1984. Only after the ULC
permission was granted on 7th February 1984, the plaintiff had
issued a legal notice to the defendant on 19th February 1984.
The Division Bench, after elaborately discussing the terms and
conditions stipulated in the agreement of sale, also agreed with
the view taken by the Single Judge. [Para 13, 14][335-D-F]
1.2 Though, the Division Bench of the High Court denied
the relief for specific performance to the plaintiff, it has directed
the respondents-defendants to refund the advance amount of
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 330
330
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
331
Rs.15,000/- along with accrued interest or a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- in all. [Para 15][335-F-G]
1.3 There is no reason to differ with the concurring
judgments passed by the Single Judge as well as the Division
Bench of the High Court denying a decree for specific
performance. However, taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and that the defendant had, in fact, received an
amount of Rs.15,000/- as early as 1978, the respondents-
defendants are directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to
the appellants-plaintiffs, within the stipulated period. [Para
16][335-G-H; 336-A-B]
K. S. Vidyanadam and Others v. Vairavan (1997) 3 SCC
1 : [1997] 1 SCR 993 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1997] 1 SCR 993
referred to
Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1013
of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2008 of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Letter  Patents Appeal No. 26 of
1999.
C. Nageswara Rao, Sr. Adv., Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Ms. Tatini
Basu, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sridhar Potaraju, Ms. Shiwani Tushir, Rajat Srivastava, Advs. for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B. R. GAVAI, J.
1. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 17th October 2008
passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature,
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Letters Patent Appeal No. 26 of 1999,
thereby partly allowing the appeal filed by the present appellants.
2. Facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under:
The defendant is the owner of the suit property. The defendant
executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff for sale of the
KOLLI SATYANARAYANA (DEAD) v. VALURIPALLI KESAVA
RAO CHOWDARY (DEAD)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
332
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
suit property. The total consideration was fixed at Rs.45,315/-. The plaintiff
paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- by way of Demand Draft dated 7th July
1978 as advance payment. The defendant addressed a letter to the plaintiff
on 13th October 1978 stating therein that, she was ready to execute the
sale deed and that she was coming to Hyderabad the week thereafter
for the said purpose. The said communication was responded to by the
plaintiff on 20th October 1978, requesting to confirm whether the
necessary permission from the Competent Authority (hereinafter referred
to as the “ULC Authorities”) under the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “ULC Act”) to sell the suit property
had been obtained or not. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff purchased
stamp papers on 23rd October 1978. On 8th December 1978, t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.