9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the trial court. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that: A. The Appellant/Plaintiff was carrying on business prior to 1.1.1978 in the appurtenant land as a tenant, and had made an offer to purchase the said premises, alongwith two other premises belonging to the landlady Ms. Anjum Jehan - Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'Res. No. 1'). B. The parties entered into an agreement dated 15.10.1977, for the sale of land admeasuring 1200 square yards situated at Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, for a total consideration of ₹ 1,70,070/-. Out of which a sum of ₹ 25,000/- was paid as earnest money. The said agreement to sell, provided that the sale deed was to be executed within a period of six months from the date of agreement, or upon intimation by the vendor, as she had to obtain permission from the competent authority Under Section 27 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1976), the necessary income tax clearances and the sub division permission from the municipal corporation. The aforesaid suit land was also in the possession of the landlady, and had p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istered another sale deed in favour of Respondent No. 2/Defendant No. 3 on 30.4.1985, with respect to the suit property admeasuring 260 square yards. K. The trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 22.3.1991 decreed the suit of the Appellant/Plaintiff except for a small area admeasuring 65 square yards, which had been purchased by Defendant No. 6 (represented by L.Rs. Defendant Nos. 6 to 10), observing that the said Defendant had no knowledge of any agreement to sell between the Appellant/Plaintiff and Res. No. 1. The trial court also dismissed Suit No. 135 of 1984 that had been filed by Respondent No. 3/Defendant No. 7 (K.Y. Rajaiah). L. The Appellant/Plaintiff was directed to deposit the balance consideration amount in the trial court within a period of four weeks, and the same was duly deposited by the Appellant/Plaintiff on 6.4.1991. M. Both sides preferred appeals before the High Court, and all the appeals were disposed of by a common judgment dated 10.6.2003, as referred to hereinabove. N. The High Court held, that the Appellant/Plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, thus, in view of the same, there was no occasion to decide is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 (Ms. Anjum Jehan) never appeared in the witness box and never filed a written statement. The same was filed by her GPA holder. The said GPA was in respect of various other properties, and the GPA holder was not authorised to pursue suits in respect of the suit property. Under no circumstance is the GPA holder competent to enter the witness box and to give evidence as a substitute for the original party. Thus, the appeals deserve to be allowed, and the judgment and decree of the High Court, is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra Shri A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, Senior Advocate, Shri R. Anand Padmanabhan, Shri Sohan Singh Rana and Shri A.V. Rangam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, have opposed the appeals contending that the High Court has appreciated the evidence on record and has reached the correct conclusion. The findings of the fact recorded by the High Court are based on evidence, and do not warrant any interference by this Court. The Appellant/Plaintiff, has not furnished any explanation for the delay, as he was duly informed by Res. No. 1 of the fact that she had obtained the required sanctions/permissions. Had the Appellant/plaintiff been in a positi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant/Plaintiff to pay the balance amount. (iii) There has been inordinate delay on the part of the Appellant/Plaintiff in filing the suit. Had he been ready and willing, he ought to have approached the court at the earliest. (iv) As per the evidence of Defendant No. 7, the power of attorney holder (DW.1), did not call the Appellant/Plaintiff and ask him to get the sale deed executed, in pursuance of agreement dated 15.10.1977. The Appellant/Plaintiff expressed his inability to get the sale deed executed as he had no ready cash. (v) There was no requirement in law to obtain permission for separate sub-division and thus, Res. No. 1 was not required to obtain any such sanction. Furthermore, the said property had already been sub-divided, and bore different numbers. (vi) Res. No. 1 had obtained the requisite permission from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities in December 1977, and the Appellant/Plaintiff had handed over the draft sale deed to Res. No. 1. (vii) It was because the Appellant/Plaintiff was not willing and ready to perform his part of the contract, and was resorting to dilatory tactics, that Res. No. 1 had entered into two agreements to sell with Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sale consideration. Nor he had ever told Defendant No. 7 that he wanted to sell the agricultural land to raise money to purchase the suit property. No question was put to him in the cross-examination, in response to which he could establish that he was a man of means, which he has thus stated in the replication, though he has admitted that he has certain outstanding dues towards the bank. He has denied the suggestion that he had neither a house, nor agricultural land, and that he had no capacity to pay the sale consideration, and further, that he had falsely deposed in respect of the same. 12. The allegation made in the written statement stating that the Appellant/Plaintiff had told Res. No. 1 that she was free to sell the land, was not established by leading any evidence. Additionally, Res. No. 1 lives in the USA. It is nobody's case that the Appellant/Plaintiff had any communication with her. It was not mentioned in the averments raised in the written statement, that she had been informed anyone of the same through the power of attorney holder. Further, with respect to the issue regarding financial capacity to pay, the Appellant/Plaintiff examined K. Narayana Reddy (PW ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
