9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (7) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the outset note the material facts. The suit for specific performance is O.S. No. 13 of 1962, in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Respondent No. 2 in the revision petition executed the agreement of sale on October 9, 1962, in favour of the petitioner (plaintiff) agreeing to sell a house in Secunderabad for Rs. 60,000. A sum of Rs. 20,000 was paid on that day itself. However, the second respondent sold the property to respondents Nos. 3 to 8 on which the suit was filed by the petitioner. The trial court awarded only damages and declined to grant specific performance. C.C.C.A. No. 71 of 1964 filed by the plaintiff was allowed by this court and specific performance was decreed. The respondents' appeal to the Supreme Court was unsuccessful. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .C.C.A. No. 71 of 1964, directed that the second respondent shall, at the expense of the appellant-plaintiff, execute and procure registration of a proper and sufficient sale deed of the house. As I have pointed out, the needed sum for execution and registration of the sale deed had already been deposited by the petitioner. This court further directed that on the execution and registration of the sale deed, the second respondent shall be at liberty to withdraw the balance of the sale price of Rs. 40,000 deposited by the petitioner in the lower court without furnishing security. Costs were awarded to the petitioner. It is significant to note that the trial court paid out the amount of the costs to the petitioner from out of the amount he had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d deposit the amount into court. Indeed, the petitioner did not wait until the passing of this decree to make the deposit. He did it even when he instituted the suit. As per the decree, the sale deed has been executed and is awaiting registration. So any amount of exertion or any number of petitions cannot get back the amount to the petitioner. It is, therefore, not possible to say that the amount " belongs " to the petitioner. Further, the amount had been deposited and by virtue of the decree, passed by this court in appeal, the amount has become earmarked towards the payment of the balance of consideration to the second respondent. Once it is earmarked for the specified purpose of payment to the second respondent, the amount ceases to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount. The department cannot have a higher right than the petitioner. I have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the amount in deposit in court and awaiting to be paid to the second respondent on registration being completed does not belong to the petitioner. The learned judge of the court below has, in my opinion, made a wrong approach to the problem by trying to find out whether the second respondent has become the fall owner of the money. That is clearly trying to resolve the problem from the wrong end and on a wrong basis. For these reasons I allow the revision petition and set aside the order of the court below made in E.A. No. 35 of 1974. Having regard to the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
