Malneedi Suryanarayana Died vs Alluri Lakshmipathi,
2022 Latest Caselaw 8728 AP

      THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

                 SECOND APPEAL No.1052 of 2016

JUDGMENT:

In this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. the

defendants in the suit are the appellants and the respondent is

the plaintiff. O.S.No.52 of 2008 was filed by the plaintiff

seeking the following relief:

"(a) For specific performance of the registered agreement of sale dt. 17.01.2005 by directing the defendants to receive the balance sale considerate of Rs.30,500/- and to execute a regular sale deed and register the same in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee in respect of the plaint schedule property and deliver the possession of the same to the plaintiff and upon their failure to do so, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/- into Court and execute a regular sale deed and register the same in favour of the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants and deliver the possession of the same to the plaintiff."

2. Defendants put in their contest. After due trial, the

learned V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur by judgment

dated 31.12.2008 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved of it, the

plaintiff filed A.S.No.152 of 2009. The defendants put in their

contest. Learned first appellate Court agreed with the case of

the plaintiff and set aside the lower Court judgment and allowed

the appeal in the following terms:

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

"9. In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment that is rendered in O.S.No.52 of 2008, dated 31.12.2008 by the Court of V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. Thus, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs.30,500-00 (Rupees thirty thousand and five hundred only) with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 16.01.2006 till the date of decree within one month from the date of decree and the second defendant is directed to execute registered sale deed by receiving the said sale consideration in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property, failing which, the appellant/plaintiff is at liberty to obtain the same through due process of law."

3. At this juncture, it has to be noticed that the prayer in the

suit shows preparedness of plaintiff to pay only Rs.30,500/-

towards balance sale consideration. However, the first appellate

Court's direction to plaintiff indicates an additional payment of

24% interest. This aspect of the matter is one that is argued in

this second appeal.

4. It bears a mention here that during pendency of first

appeal before learned Principal District Judge, Guntur, the

plaintiff had filed I.A.No.714 of 2010 under Order VI Rule 17

C.P.C. seeking to permit him to amend the plaint and seek the

alternative relief of refund of money along with interest. The

first appellate Court dismissed that petition. The plaintiff

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

carried the matter to this Court by way of C.R.P.No.2508 of

2010. This Court allowed the revision and permitted the

plaintiff to have the plaint amended. In such circumstances,

plaint was amended and the alternative relief was claimed in the

following terms:

"(b) alternatively, for the refund of advance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- paid to the defendants under the agreement of sale together with interest at 12% p.a. (amended as per CRP No.2508/2010 allowed by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. dt. 11.06.2015.)"

5. It may also be noted that during pendency of the first

appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Guntur the

1st defendant died. It seems that by virtue of the property rights

between each of the defendants, only the 2nd defendant became

entitled to represent the case. Since the first appellate Court

decreed the suit for specific performance, the defendants have

carried the matter to this Court by this second appeal.

6. 139.5 square yards of vacant site out of Ac.12.12 cents of

land in D.No.559 situate in Pedakakani Gram Panchayat, Near

Boddurai Center, Guntur District is the immovable property

owned by defendants. It is about that property the litigation

arose. In the plaint, it is stated that defendants offered to sell

and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the said property for a total

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

consideration of Rs.1,30,500/- and defendants executed a

registered agreement for sale dated 17.01.2005. On the date of

agreement Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by plaintiff and was received

by defendants towards advance sale consideration. The

stipulation in the agreement was that the plaintiff had to pay

the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/- within one year

from the date of agreement and on payment of such balance

sale consideration, the defendants shall execute the registered

sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. In the plaint, it is stated that

within that one year time plaintiff approached both the

defendants and requested them several times to receive balance

sale consideration and register the sale deed and deliver

possession of the property but the defendants were postponing

it on one pretext or other. Thereafter, plaintiff came to know

that the defendants were trying to alienate the property without

the consent of the plaintiff and in violation of the agreed

agreement for sale. On 24.08.2006 plaintiff got issued

registered legal notice calling upon the defendants to receive the

balance sale consideration and that notice was received by them

on 25.08.2006. The defendants kept quite.

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

7. The crucial averment in the plaint, which has led to

serious dispute between parties, is required to be extracted from

the plaint:

"d. The plaintiff hereby submits that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract of sale, but the defendants did not choose to perform their part of contract of sale. The plaintiff is ready and willing to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/- into Court if necessary. As there is no other go, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dt. 17.01.2005. Hence, the suit."

8. Both the defendants together filed a written statement

and stated that the case set out by the plaintiff is incorrect and

the alleged demands made by the plaintiff expressing readiness

and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration etc., are

all false. It is stated that both the defendants approached the

plaintiff for a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to meet their family

expenses and the plaintiff had asked for security and plaintiff

himself enquired about the suit schedule property and the

defendants furnished him the particulars of the property and

the plaintiff was not agreeable to lend the loan on a pronote and

demanded the defendants and conceding to it they had executed

the plaint mentioned registered agreement for sale. It is stated

that the 2nd defendant himself had no absolute rights over the

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

property during the lifetime of 1st defendant. In the above

referred unavoidable circumstances alone, these defendants

executed the agreement for sale and these defendants are law

abiding citizens and they are ready and willing to perform their

part of the contract, but it is the plaintiff who breached the

contract. The important traversal made in the written

statement at para No.4 is extracted here:

"4. ....It is respectfully submitted by the defendants that "As per the Regd. Sale Agreement 16.01.2006 is the last date for the payment of balance of sale consideration, after that the said balance of sale consideration is to be paid with an interest at the rate of 24% Per Annum (p.a.). Here the plaintiff suppressed the said interest clause or fact, and that the plaintiff never came or approached the defendants as he stated in the plaint, and that the plaintiff is never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as per the Regd. Sale Agreement. Evidently the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 24.08.2006 i.e., not within one year period from the date of Regd. Sale Agreement (dt. 17.01.2005), he offered only balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/- and he is not willing to pay and not ready to pay the interest as per the said Regd. Sale Agreement.""

9. On these rival pleadings, learned trial Court framed the

following issues for trial:

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 17-01-2005

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

by directing the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/- as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit property?

3. To what relief?"

10. Plaintiff testified as PW.1 and examined the attestor to the

agreement for sale as PW.2. The agreement for sale was

exhibited as Ex.A.1. The legal notice that was got issued by

plaintiff to the defendants is Ex.A.2 and its postal

acknowledgments are Exs.A.3 and A.4. The 2nd defendant

testified as DW.1. No documents were exhibited. On the

evidence adduced and on hearing arguments of both counsel,

learned trial Court recorded a finding that Ex.A.1 agreement for

sale was validly entered into between both the parties. While

arriving at that finding it considered the plea of the defendants

about the nature of the transaction which the defendants

contended that it was a debt that they borrowed from the

plaintiff and they never intended to execute an agreement for

sale but on the compulsion exerted by the plaintiff they had

executed Ex.A.1. Having recorded a finding that Ex.A.1 was

valid, it then went on to consider the main controversy between

the parties which is about readiness and willingness on part of

the plaintiff to perform his part of the contractual obligations. It

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

had extensively recorded the principles of law governing this

aspect of the matter and finally held that the plaintiff failed to

perform his part of the contractual terms and that the plaintiff

was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

Holding so, it dismissed the suit.

11. This very evidence was placed before the appellate Court

and the first appellate Court on considering the grounds urged

in the first appeal, framed the following points for its

consideration:

"(1) Whether the appellant is entitled for the relief of specific performance of Ex.A1 agreement of sale dated 17.01.2005, or in alternative, to get refund of rupees one lakh alleged to have been paid by him to the respondents?

(2) Whether there exists any infirmity in the judgment of the trial court either in appreciating the facts of the case or in applying the established principles of law to the said facts as contended by the appellant herein, and if so, to what relief the appellant is entitled to?"

12. It stated that learned trial Court though recorded

appropriate principles of law failed to follow them appropriately

while applying the law to the facts available on record. It stated

that from the evidence on record one could certainly say that

plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

the contract. Holding so, it set aside the impugned judgment of

the trial Court and decreed the suit for specific performance.

13. The aggrieved defendants have come up with this second

appeal. A learned judge of this Court admitted the second

appeal on 18.06.2019 on the following substantial questions of

law:

"(a) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in view of his failure to offer to pay the agreed rate of interest @ 24% per annum from 01.07.2006 to the date of the registration?

(b) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in not applying the settled proposition of law in a suit for specific performance, that even if it is lawful to do so, the Court can exercise its vested discretionary powers under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and refuse to grant such relief on sound and settled principles, more particularly when it would be grossly inequitable to enforce specific performance and would ultimately result in victimization of the alleged vendor?

(c) Whether lower appellate Court is right in not considering the specific issue whether the plaintiff has established the existence of a valid agreement of sale and his readiness and willingness to execute the same, which are twin mandatory conditions for a suit for specific performance?"

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

14. Learned counsel on both sides submitted their

arguments. During the course of arguments, learned counsel

for appellants submits that the third point framed in this

second appeal is not pressed and this Court could go ahead

considering the finding of both the Courts below that Ex.A.1

agreement for sale is valid. Therefore, it is recorded that Ex.A.1

agreement for sale is a validly executed contract between

parties.

15. The entire controversy is a few aspects of the matter.

Ex.A.1 is a non-possessory registered agreement for sale

executed by both the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. The

total consideration was Rs.1,30,500/-. Under the agreement, a

part of the sale consideration to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- was

paid by the plaintiff and was received by the defendants. The

balance sale consideration was only Rs.30,500/-. This

agreement was executed on 17.01.2005. Time frame agreed

upon between parties by the agreement is one year which is

mentioned as on or before 16.01.2006. Thus, on or before

16.01.2006 both parties to the agreement should see that the

terms in the agreement are materialized and resulted in

registration of the regular registered sale deed. That did not

happen and therefore, the agreement landed in litigation. The

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

terms of the agreement show that if the plaintiff failed to pay the

balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/- on or before

16.01.2006, the plaintiff had to pay interest at the rate of Rs.2/-

per month and obtained the registered sale deed bearing

expenses for registration. All these facts are proved and

appropriate findings are recorded by both the Courts below. It

is on these admitted facts the legal questions have cropped up.

16. In this case the entire controversy revolves around the

component of interest that is mentioned in the agreement for

sale. As the terms of the agreement indicate that in the event of

plaintiff's failure to pay the balance sale consideration within

the agreed one year, his obligation to pay is not only be the

agreed Rs.30,500/- but also the interest calculated at the rate

mentioned in the agreement as available on the date of

payment. Thus, the interest component gets added to the

balance sale consideration. According to the defendants/

appellants from the time of notice that was got issued by the

plaintiff under Ex.A.2 till the conclusion of the trial all

throughout plaintiff failed to show his readiness and willingness

to pay the component of interest and therefore, plaintiff should

be called as one who has not been ready and willing to perform

his part of the agreed contract. As against it, the contention of

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

the learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff is that both in the

Ex.A.2 notice as well as in the plaint as well as in his evidence,

the plaintiff has always been expressing his readiness and

willingness and at all times plaintiff has been mentioning the

agreement for sale and therefore, plaintiff shall be held as one

who has been ready and willing to perform his part of the

contract.

17. Order VI C.P.C. states the procedure for pleadings

generally. Order VI Rule 9 C.P.C. is extracted here:

"9. Effect of document to be stated:-

Wherever the contents of any document are material, it shall be sufficient in any pleading to state the effect thereof as briefly as possible, without setting out the whole or any part thereof, unless the precise words of the document or any part thereof are material."

18. Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, 'the

Act') provides law as to when a relief of specific performance

could not be granted. Section 16(c) of the Act is relevant for

consideration and therefore, the same is extracted here:

"Sec.16 Personal bars to relief:-

Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person-

(a) ......

(b) ......

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

(c) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.

Explanation: For the purposes of Cl.(c),-

(i) Where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in Court any money except when so directed by the Court;

(ii) the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction."

19. In Ousephe Varghese v. Joseph Aley1, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India held at para No.9 as follows:

"9. ......A suit for specific performance has to conform to the requirements prescribed in Forms 47 and 48 of the 1st Schedule in the Civil Procedure Code. In a suit for specific performance it is incumbent on the plaintiff not only to set out agreement on the basis of which he sues in all its details, he must go further and plead that he has applied to the defendant specifically to perform the agreement pleaded by him but the defendant has not done so. He must further plead that he has been and is still ready and willing to specifically perform his part of the agreement. Neither in the plaint nor at any subsequent stage of the suit the plaintiff has taken those pleas. As

1969 (2) SCC 539

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

observed by this Court in Pt.Prem Raj v.D.L.F.Housing and Constructiion (P) Ltd., AIR 1968 SC 1355, (1968) 3 SCR 648 it is well settled that in a suit for specific performance the plaintiff should allege that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and in the absence of such an allegation the suit is not maintainable."

20. In Mukhtiar Singh v. Dharampal Singh2, the Hon'ble High

Court of Allahabad held at para No.10 as follows:

"10. In the present case the appellants have made no averment at all in the plaint that they have been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract as stipulated by the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 21-09-70. Both the appellants Mukhtiar Singh and Dharampal entered witness box but none of them stated before the trial Court that they have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. In their testimony before the Trial court, they merely stated that they were ready to pay the money and get the sale deed executed on the date their statement was recorded. The statement is not sufficient to meet the requirement of law as discussed earlier. In these circumstances, it must be held that the plaintiff-appellants have failed to allege that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. In the absence of such an allegation their suit was bound to fail. The trial court has rightly dismissed the appellants' suit. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs."

1980 SCC Online ALL 766/1981 ALL LJ119

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

21. Learned counsel for appellants cited Kamal Kumar v.

Premlata Joshi 3, wherein their Lordships of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India held that while considering a suit for

specific performance of an agreement for sale, the Courts have

also to see whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of

specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in

relation to suit property or it will cause any kind of hardship to

the defendant and, if so, how and in what manner and the

extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff.

Further, the Courts have to see whether the plaintiff is entitled

for grant of any other alternative relief, namely, refund of

earnest money, etc. and, if so, on what grounds. Their

Lordships have been pleased to record that the above referred

principles are part of the statutory requirements and these

requirements have to be properly pleaded by the parties in their

respective pleadings and be proved with the aid of evidence. It

is in the light of these established legal principles, which are not

any more debated in this case before this Court, the dispute has

to be resolved now.

(2019) 3 SCC 704

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

22. The following dates are to be noticed:

1. Date of agreement 17.01.2005.

2. Agreed time stipulated for completion of obligation

16.01.2006.

3. The date of Ex.A.2 notice is 24.08.2006.

4. The date of filing plaint is 29.12.2007.

23. It is undisputed that the balance sale consideration of

Rs.30,500/- was not paid by the plaintiff to the defendants on

or before the stipulated time 16.01.2006. At page No.2 of the

plaint, there is an averment that within that one year time

stipulated plaintiff approached the defendants on several

occasions asking them to receive the balance sale consideration

and register the sale deed and deliver possession of the

property, but the defendants were postponing it on one pretext

or other. This was merely repeated by PWs.1 and 2 in their

evidence. Nowhere in the plaint mentioned the date on which

and the place at which plaintiff met the defendants and asked

them for completion of the contract. Thus, there was only a

bald pleading and vague evidence. Despite the protest raised

and traversal made in the written statement, there was no effort

on part of the plaintiff during the course of trial to disclose to

the Court the date, time and place where he really made

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

demands. Be that as it may. The first verifiable occasion to see

the positive move from the plaintiff is through Ex.A.2 notice

dated 24.08.2006. Thus, nearly seven months after the expiry

of stipulated one year, plaintiff got issued this legal notice to

defendants. Para No.3 of this notice is extracted here:

"Hence, you are hereby called upon to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/- from my client and register the notice schedule property in favour of my client and deliver the possession of the same to my client, immediately after receipt of this notice, failing which my client will be constrained to take appropriate legal action against you in a competent court of law in both civil and criminal, for which you will be held liable for all costs and consequences thereto."

24. One could see from the extracted paragraph that the

plaintiff was demanding the defendants to receive only

Rs.30,500/- towards balance sale consideration and register the

sale deed. Point of attention is that this notice has not

disclosed the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in paying

the agreed rate of interest along with the remaining balance sale

consideration, which is stipulated in the agreement for sale.

According to plaintiff, despite the above notice, there was silence

on part of the defendants and they did not come forward to

oblige the demands made in the notice. It was in those

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

circumstances, plaintiff has to sue the defendants. Then

plaintiff filed the suit on 29.12.2007 and finally, the plaint was

registered on 08.02.2008. These dates are borne by record and

are admitted to be correct by both sides. The date of

presentation of plaint on 29.12.2007 indicates that it was one

year four months (16 months) after Ex.A.2 notice only the

plaintiff sued the defendants. Para iii (c) and (d) in the plaint

are extracted here:

"c. Finally on 24.08.2006 the plaintiff got issued registered legal notice to the defendants 1 and 2 demanding them to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/- and register the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. But the defendants received the said legal notice on 25.08.2006 and kept quite.

d. The plaintiff hereby submits that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract of sale, but the defendants did not choose to perform their part of contract of sale. The plaintiff is ready and willing to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/- into Court if necessary. As there is no other go, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dt. 17.01.2005. Hence, the suit."

25. The above averments in the plaint also shows

conspicuous absence of relevant averment on part of the

plaintiff that he was ready and willing to pay the interest that

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

accrued till then and his readiness and willingness to pay that

interest component along with balance sale consideration. In

the earlier paragraphs of this judgment, relief prayed in the suit

is already extracted. One would at once notice that in the relief

portion also plaintiff was not expressing his readiness and

willingness to pay the interest component along with the

balance sale consideration. On the other hand, he was asking

the Court that he would pay only that Rs.30,500/- and asked

the Court to command the defendants to execute the sale deed.

Thus, his main intention is clear that he is not prepared to pay

the component of interest.

26. In response to that plaint, the written statement filed by

the defendants categorically contested the claim of the plaintiff

on the principal ground that plaintiff was not coming forward to

pay the interest component and therefore, plaintiff was not

ready and willing to perform the contractual obligations.

Despite the fact that the plaintiff had noticed these traversals

and the defence raised, the evidence adduced at the trial

through plaintiff as PW.1 in his examination in chief indicates a

mere repetition of averments in the plaint with conspicuous

omission to swear on oath and say about his readiness and

willingness to pay the interest component. Be it noted, all these

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

omissions were pointed out to the witness during cross-

examination. He admitted these omissions all throughout. Yet

he did not make a positive statement that he is ready and

willing to pay the interest component also. Now, it is on this

evidence the trial Court concluded that plaintiff could not be

said to be ready and willing to discharge his part of contractual

obligations. In this appeal learned counsel for respondent/

plaintiff submits that plaint need not incorporate all the terms

of the agreement. The agreement in Ex.A.1 has no clause of

cancellation of agreement on failure of payment of balance sale

consideration. The evidence acknowledged by the plaintiff in

paying the balance sale consideration is never questioned. That

the plaintiff having paid nearly 2/3rd of the sale consideration is

eager to have his transaction materialized. Never the plaintiff or

his witness stated that plaintiff denies to pay the agreed rate of

interest. Now, these contentions when processed through the

law laid down in the statute and laid down in the precedent,

which is extracted above, make this Court to understand that

these submissions are against the terms of contract and the

principles of law. As rightly stated by the learned counsel for

appellants that the sale consideration should be first

understood as the one that is mentioned in the agreement for

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

sale. When the agreement for sale contains other stipulations

complying with those stipulations is the statutory need. One of

the stipulations is enlargement of sale consideration by way of

addition of interest when the plaintiff failed to pay the balance

sale consideration within the stipulated time. When once the

plaintiff failed to pay the agreed balance sale consideration

within the stipulated one year, then his readiness and

willingness to pay the remaining sale consideration should

stand included the additional interest. As long as there is total

failure to make any averment in Ex.A.2 notice, in the plaint and

in the evidence about plaintiff's readiness and willingness to pay

the enlarged sale consideration, this Court must hold that the

trial Court is right and the conclusions reached by the appellate

Court are incorrect and against law. In the considered opinion

of this Court by the time the suit was filed what remained to be

fulfilled on part of the plaintiff included the balance of

Rs.30,500/- and interest calculated at the rate of Rs.2/- per

month. Since the notice as well as the plaint and the evidence

of PW.1 do not show any inclination on part of the plaintiff to

pay that interest component, which is now part of the balance

sale consideration, he shall be held to have breached the

contract and violated the principles of law enunciated in the

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

earlier paragraphs of this judgment. In such view of the matter,

the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are correct. The

first appellate Court simply went on to say that the time was not

the essence of the contract and mere omission to mention the

interest component cannot lead to unpleasant consequence to

plaintiff are all incorrect and against law and cannot be

supported. Therefore, granting of primary relief for specific

performance resorted to by the first appellate Court cannot be

approved since the same is against law. Hence, both the points

are answered against the plaintiff/respondent and in favour of

the appellants/defendants.

27. Since the amended plaint includes refund of sale

consideration along with interest and since nothing is stated

before this Court by the appellant as to why the amount

received by the appellants could not be refunded to the plaintiff

along with 12% interest per annum and since the

defendants/appellants all throughout held possession of their

property as well as Rs.1,00,000/- received by them from the

plaintiff, it is incumbent on their part to refund the amount

along with 12% interest to the plaintiff.

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

28. Therefore, the first appellate Court's judgment in granting

the primary relief of specific performance shall be set aside and

it shall be modified by granting the alternative relief of refund of

money with 12% interest per annum. As a consequence, the

suit stands decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and

against the defendants directing the defendants to pay

Rs.1,00,000/- along with 12% interest per annum from the date

of suit till the date of this judgment and with 6% interest per

annum till actual payment.

29. With the above modification, the Second Appeal is partly

allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 15.11.2022 Ivd

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1052 of 2016

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

SECOND APPEAL No.1052 of 2016

Date: 15.11.2022

Ivd