Vundavalli Ratna Manikyam, W/O V. … vs V.P.P.R.N. Prasada Rao on 6 February, 2020


Supreme Court of India

Vundavalli Ratna Manikyam, W/O V. … vs V.P.P.R.N. Prasada Rao on 6 February, 2020

Author: M.R. Shah

Bench: Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah

                                                                  REPORTABLE
                               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                               CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1204 OF 2020
                               (Arising from SLP(C) No. 36253/2014)


         Vundavalli Ratna Manikyam & another                            …Appellants

                                          Versus

         V.P.P.R.N. Prasada Rao                                   …Respondent




                                          JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment

and order dated 25.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh in

Appeal Suit No. 3511 of 1992, whereby the High Court has allowed the said

appeal suit filed by the respondent herein – original plaintiff and has quashed

and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in O.S.
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by

No. 55 of 1986 dismissing the suit and consequently decreeing the suit of the
JAYANT KUMAR ARORA
Date: 2020.02.07
18:26:14 IST
Reason:

respondent herein – original plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement

1
to sell dated 7.5.1981, the original defendants in O.S. No. 55 of 1986 have

preferred the present appeal.

3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:

That one Nimmalapudi Ramaswami – husband of original defendant no.1

was the original owner of the suit land. That the said Nimmalapudi Ramaswami

agreed to sell the suit land by executing agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981 in

favour of the original plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.59,200/-. He

received an advance sale consideration of Rs.26,500/- on the same day. As per

the agreement to sell, the balance sale consideration was required to be paid

within four months. However, the time was extended making endorsement on

the reverse of the original agreement to sell for another period of eight months.

But during the extended period, the State Government initiated land acquisition

proceedings for acquiring the suit property. The original land owner –

Nimmalapudi Ramaswami and the plaintiff made a representation for deleting

the suit property from the proposed land acquisition. At this stage, it is required

to be noted that in the representation made to the Assistant Collector, the

original land owner categorically admitted that he has sold the suit land to the

plaintiff for consideration and delivered possession of the land to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff also stated in the said representation that he has purchased the

property under the agreement to sell and has taken possession of the property in

question. That thereafter the State Government issued notification under Section

4 of the Land Acquisition Act, vide notification dated 21.09.1981.

2
3.1 The said notification came to be challenged by the plaintiff and another

by filing Writ Petition No. 3161 of 1983. The said writ petition came to be

allowed and the notification came to be set aside by judgment and order dated

22.11.1984. Appeal against the judgment of the High Court came to be

dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 4.2.1985. After the death of

the original land owner – Nimmalapudi Ramaswami, the original defendant

no.1 – wife of Nimmalapudi Ramaswami executed a sale deed in favour of

original defendant no.2 – Bogilla Satyanarayana Murthy. Apprehending that the

wife of late Nimmalapudi Ramaswami – original defendant no.1 –

Nimmalapudi Veeramma and the said Bogilla Satyanarayana Murthy may

interfere with his possession, the original plaintiff – respondent herein filed O.S.

No. 24 of 1984 in the Court of District Munsiff Court, Ramachandrapuram

against the aforesaid two for permanent injunction and obtained a temporary

injunction. The aforesaid suit was subsequently transferred to the District

Munsif Court, Alamuru which was registered as O.S. No. 188/1984 and later the

said suit was transferred to the Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram and

registered as O.S. No. 94/1989 claiming permanent injunction restraining

Bogilla Satyanarayana Murthy and his men from interfering with his

possession.

3.2 That thereafter the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 20.01.1986 to

original defendant no.1 – widow of late Nimmalapudi Ramaswami and Bogilla

Satyanarayana Murthy claiming specific performance of the agreement to sell

3
dated 7.5.1981. Original defendant no.1 – Nimmalapudi Veeramma replied to

the aforesaid notice vide reply notice dated 31.1.1986 contending that she has

already sold the property to Bogilla Satyanarayana Murthy for a valuable

consideration and consequently refused to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the

respondent herein – original plaintiff filed O.S. No. 55/1986 on the file of

Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram against the appellants herein – original

defendants on 23.4.1986 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated

7.5.1981. Alternatively, the plaintiff prayed to refund the advance amount of

Rs.26,500/- together with interest @ 18% per annum and award of damages of

Rs.25,000/-.

3.3 That the said suit was resisted by original defendant no.1 – Nimmalapudi

Veeramma by filing the written statement contending that after the death of her

husband Nimmalapudi Ramaswami she was put in possession of the schedule

property and she executed an agreement to sell dated 16.2.1983 and sold the suit

property for Rs.20,000/- and received an advance of Rs.2,000/- and thereafter

executed a registered sale deed dated 8.7.1983 in favour of defendant no.2 –

Bogilla Satyanarayana Murthy and delivered possession to him on 10.05.1983.

It was also contended that the alleged agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981 is not

true and valid and it is a collusive agreement brought into existence by

Nimmalapudi Ramaswami in anticipation of the land acquisition proceedings.

Original defendant no.1 prayed to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff.

4
3.4 Original defendant no.2 – Bogilla Satyanarayana Murthy also filed the

written statement in O.S. No. 55/1986. It was the case on behalf of original

defendant no.2 that he is a bonafide purchaser for a valid consideration and he is

in possession and enjoyment of the same by executing the sale deed in his

favour executed by the wife of late Nimmalapudi Ramaswami.

3.5 That both the aforesaid suits being O.S. No. 55/1986 (suit for specific

performance) and O.S. No. 94/1989 (suit for permanent injunction) were

consolidated and heard together. In both the suits, the learned trial Court

framed the issues. That both the plaintiffs and the defendants led the evidence,

both oral as well as documentary. That on appreciation of evidence on record,

the learned trial Court believed the execution of agreement to sell dated

7.5.1981 in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court also believed the

possession of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit. However, the learned

trial Court denied the specific performance of the agreement to sell dated

7.5.1981 only on the ground that the claim for specific performance is barred by

limitation.

3.6 The learned trial Court decreed O.S. No. 94/1989 and granted permanent

injunction restraining the appellants – original defendants to interfere with the

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question having found

that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property.

3.7 Aggrieved by the common judgment and decree passed by the learned

trial Court passed in O.S. No. 55 of 1986 in dismissing the suit for specific

5
performance of the agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981, the original plaintiff filed

Appeal Suit No. 3511/1992 before the High Court. The original defendants in

O.S. No. 55/1986 also filed Tr.A.S. No. 439/2006 challenging the adverse

findings on issue nos. 1 to 5 in O.S. No. 55/1986, i.e., believing the agreement

to sell in favour of the plaintiff and believing the possession of the plaintiff

under the agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981. At this stage, it is required to be

noted that the learned trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation

considering Article 54 of the Limitation Act. However, it was the specific case

on behalf of the plaintiff that Article 113 of the Limitation Act would be

applicable and therefore the suit is within the period of limitation.

3.8 That by the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has

allowed the appeal suit no. 3511/1992 preferred by the original plaintiff and has

quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court

dismissing the suit for specific performance and consequently has decreed the

suit for specific performance applying Article 113 of the Limitation Act. By the

impugned common judgment and order the High Court has also dismissed

Tr.A.S. No. 439/2006 and Tr.A.S. No. 962/2013 preferred by the original

defendants confirming the findings on issue nos. 1 to 5 in O.S. No. 55/1986 and

also confirming the judgment and decree of permanent injunction in O.S. No.

94/1989.

3.9 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment

and order passed by the High Court, the original defendants have preferred the

6
present appeal. It is required to be noted that what is challenged in the present

appeal is the judgment and order passed by the High Court in A.S. No.

3511/1992 only, vide which the High Court has allowed the said appeal

preferred by the original plaintiff and consequently has decreed the suit for

specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981 in favour of the

original plaintiff.

4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants – original

defendants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the

case the High Court has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the

judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit on the

ground of limitation.

4.1 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

appellants – original defendants that the High Court has materially erred in not

properly appreciating the fact that the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the

suit on the ground of limitation applying Article 54 of the Limitation Act. It is

submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Article 113 of the

Limitation Act shall not be applicable.

4.2 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

appellants – original defendants that as per the original agreement to sell dated

7.5.1981 the sale deed was required to be executed within four months from the

date of execution of the agreement to sell and even the same was extended up to

6.5.1982 only. It is submitted that therefore the limitation for filing the suit by

7
the plaintiff would be three years from 6.5.1982 as provided under Article 54 of

the Limitation Act. It is submitted therefore as rightly held by the learned trial

Court the suit of the plaintiff was barred under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.

4.3 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

appellants – original defendants that the High Court ought to have seen that

taking a stray sentence in Ex.A1 (agreement to sell) that vendor has to settle all

the disputes in the property cannot be termed as implied covenant.

4.4 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

appellants – original defendants that the High Court ought to have appreciated

that there has been a valid sale by the widow of the vendor in favour of

appellant no.2 herein – Bogilla Satyanarayana Murthy and the said sale deed

was acted upon by the widow and as she was in possession, she put appellant

no.2 herein into possession of the suit property.

4.5 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

appellants – original defendants that the High Court ought to have appreciated

that till notice dated 20.1.1986 was served upon appellant no.2 – original

defendant no.2, appellant no.2 was not aware of the alleged agreement to sell

dated 7.5.1981 in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted that appellant no.2

herein – original defendant no.2 is a purchaser without notice of the existence of

the earlier agreement and on payment of full sale consideration. It is submitted

that therefore the High Court has materially erred in allowing the appeal and

decreeing the suit for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff.

8
4.6 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present appeal.

5. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Mrs. K. Sarada Devi,

learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff – respondent

herein.

5.1 It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

respondent herein – original plaintiff that in the facts and circumstances of the

case, the High Court has not committed any error in decreeing the suit relying

upon and applying Article 113 of the Limitation Act.

5.2 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

respondent herein – original plaintiff that so far as the execution of agreement

to sell dated 7.5.1981 by original land owner – Nimmalapudi Ramaswami and

that the plaintiff was put in possession there are concurrent findings of fact by

the learned trial Court as well as the High Court, which are on appreciation of

evidence on record.

5.3 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

respondent herein – original plaintiff that after the execution of the agreement to

sell dated 7.5.1981 and after the time to make the payment and execution of the

sale deed was extended by a further period of eight months, the land acquisition

proceedings were initiated and it was the plaintiff who challenged the

acquisition proceedings and in the petition filed by him the acquisition

proceedings came to be set aside and the writ petition was allowed. It is

submitted that as mentioned in the agreement to sell – Ex. A1 it was for the

9
vendor to settle all the disputes in the property. It is submitted that after the

land acquisition proceedings came to be quashed by the High Court and

thereafter when the plaintiff served a notice upon the defendants to execute the

sale deed and thereafter there was a denial by original defendant no.s 1 & 2

thereafter the suit has been filed within a period of three years. It is submitted

that therefore Article 113 of the Limitation Act would be applicable and the

same is rightly applied by the High Court.

5.4 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

respondent herein – original plaintiff that even and as observed by the High

Court in the impugned common judgment and order, the execution of the

agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981 has not been disputed by the defendants. It is

submitted that however it was their defence that the said agreement to sell was

to defeat the land acquisition proceedings. It is submitted that therefore when

the agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981 has been admitted by the defendants and

the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and

all throughout it was the plaintiff who challenged the acquisition proceedings

which shows the bonafides on the part of the plaintiff, the High Court has

rightly allowed the appeal and consequently has rightly decreed the suit for

specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981.

5.5 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

respondent herein – original plaintiff that as such there is no appeal preferred by

the defendants challenging the impugned common judgment and order passed

10
by the High Court insofar as dismissing their appeals being Tr.A.S. No.

439/2006 and Tr.A.S. No. 962/2013 by which the High Court specifically

confirmed the findings on issue nos. 1 to 5 in O.S. No. 55/1986 and also

confirmed the judgment and decree of permanent injunction in favour of the

plaintiff in O.S. No. 94/1989.

5.6 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

respondent herein – original plaintiff that as such the plaintiff is in possession of

the suit property since 1981 and therefore also the present appeal is required to

be dismissed.

5.7 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

respondent herein – original plaintiff that even otherwise and with a view to put

an end to the litigation the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay some more

amount than what is required to be paid under the agreement to sell.

5.8 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.

6. In reply, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants –

original defendants has submitted that if the impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court is set aside and the property/land in question is

reverted back to the appellants -, the appellants are ready and willing to pay a

handsome amount to the plaintiff.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and

perused and considered the impugned common judgment and order passed by

11
the High Court as well as the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial

Court.

7.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original plaintiff instituted

the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981 (Ex.A1). It

is not in dispute that under the agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981, the sale deed

was to be executed within a period of four months from the date of execution of

agreement to sell i.e. 7.5.1981. However, thereafter time was extended by a

further period of eight months i.e. up to 6.5.1982. However, before any further

steps could be taken by the plaintiff and the original vendor, the suit property

was subjected to the acquisition by the State Government. It was the plaintiff

who made a representation to the Assistant Collector and requested for deletion

of the property from the acquisition. A similar representation was made by the

original vendor also. It is required to be noted that in the representations both

the vendor and the vendee specifically stated that the land in question has been

sold in favour of the plaintiff and that he is in possession. Therefore, the

original vendor as such admitted the execution of the agreement to sell dated

7.5.1981 as well as handing over the possession of the suit property to the

plaintiff. Therefore, the learned trial Court as such rightly believed the

execution of the agreement to sell dated 7.5.1981 as well as handing over of

possession to the plaintiff. The same is rightly confirmed by the High Court.

7.2 However, the trial Court dismissed the suit solely on the ground that the

suit for specific performance was barred by limitation applying Article 54 of the

12
Limitation Act. On the other hand, it was the specific case on behalf of the

plaintiff that in the facts and circumstances of the case Article 113 of the

Limitation Act shall be applicable as the suit was filed within a period of three

years when the right to sue accrued. According to the plaintiff, the right to sue

accrued when the plaintiff served a notice upon the defendants to execute the

sale deed and the defendants refused to execute the sale deed. At this stage, it is

required to be noted that under the agreement to sell it was for the vendor to

settle all the disputes in the property. As the land in question was subjected to

the acquisition and thereafter the acquisition proceedings came to be quashed

and set aside at the instance of the plaintiff in the year 1984/1985 and thereafter

the plaintiff served a legal notice upon the defendants on 20.01.1986 calling

upon the defendants to execute the sale deed which came to be refused by reply

notice dated 31.1.1986 and thereafter the suit for specific performance was

preferred, as rightly observed by the High Court, Article 113 of the Limitation

Act would be applicable and not Article 54 of the Limitation Act as applied by

the learned trial Court. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by

the High Court in applying Article 113 of the Limitation Act. As observed

hereinabove, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit solely on the ground that

the suit is barred by limitation considering Article 54 of the Limitation Act

though all other findings with respect to the execution of agreement to sell., the

plaintiff was put in possession etc. were held to be in favour of the plaintiff.

13
7.3 Therefore applying Article 113 of the Limitation Act to the facts of the

case on hand and the conduct of the plaintiff all throughout to protect not only

his possession but to protect the property from acquisition and that he was

always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement to sell/contract,

the High Court has rightly decreed the suit for specific performance. We are in

complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.

7.4 However, at the same time, considering the fact that the agreement to sell

was executed in the year 1981 for a total sale consideration of Rs.59,200/- and

at the relevant time Rs.26,500/- was paid as an earnest money and all

throughout the plaintiff enjoyed the possession and thereafter by now about 40

years have passed and as agreed by the plaintiff to pay some more amount to

the defendants, over and above the sale consideration as mentioned in the

agreement to sell, which he has agreed to pay to put an end to the litigation and

to buy peace, while dismissing the present appeal, we direct that the plaintiff

shall pay a total sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) to the

defendants towards the full sale consideration, which shall be inclusive of the

balance amount of sale consideration to be paid to the defendants under the

agreement to sell, to be paid within a period of eight weeks from today. On

payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only)

to the original defendants by the original plaintiff, immediately thereafter the

original defendants are directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the

plaintiff.

14

8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present appeal stands

disposed of, however, no order as to costs.

……………………………….J.

[ARUN MISHRA]

……………………………….J.

                                              [VINEET SARAN]


NEW DELHI;                                    ……………………………..J.
FEBRUARY 06, 2020                             [M.R. SHAH]




                                                                            15



Source link