Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chintamaneni Rama Koteswara Rao And Anr vs Kapilavai Rama Sujatha on 23 September, 2024
APHC010044652013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
FIRST APPEAL NO: 553/2013
Between:
Chintamaneni Rama Koteswara Rao And Anr ...APPELLANT(S)
and Others
AND
Kapilavai Rama Sujatha ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. M RADHAKRISHNA
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. S V R SUBRAHMANYAM
The Court made the following:
2
Dr.VRKS,J
A.S.No.553 of 2013
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
APPEAL SUIT NO.553 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
1. The vendors in a suit for specific performance are the appellants herein and were defendants before the trial court. Their defence was negatived by the trial court and therefore in this appeal under section 96 CPC, they impugn the judgment dated 27.12.2012 in O.S.No.141 of 2006 of the learned XIII Additional District Judge, Krishna District at Vijayawada.
2. There are two appellants. 1st appellant is the father and 2nd appellant is his son. 1st appellant/ Sri Ch. Rama Koteswara Rao died on 10.09.2023. Informing the same, a memo dated 28.04.2024 was filed showing the son of the deceased/ 2nd appellant/ Sri Ch.Sri Krishna as his legal representative. Respondent herein was the plaintiff before the court below. While the appeal was filed in the year 2013 mentioning various grounds in the memorandum of grounds of appeal by a memo dated 11.11.2022 appellants raised additional grounds for consideration.
3
Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013
3. Sri M Radha Krishna, the learned counsel for appellants and Sri SVR Subrahmanyam, the learned counsel for respondent submitted arguments.
4. Ex.A1 is an unregistered non possessory agreement for sale dated 16.09.2006. Before the trial court, the principal question that fell for consideration was as to who was at default in terms of the agreement for sale. The memorandum of grounds of appeal essentially raised contentions revolving around that question. However, by the additional grounds, the principal question raised by the vendors/ appellants is about legality and enforceability of Ex.A1 agreement for sale.
5. Schedule appended to the plaint describes the property in detail and states that it is 186.5 square yards of site with RCC building and ACC sheets shed including boring pump with motor and current services situated in Gandhinagar, Vijayawada town of Krishna district. The vendor signed and executed Ex.A1 agreement for sale in favour of the purchaser for a total sale consideration of Rs.22,38,000/-. Under this Ex.A1, vendors acknowledged to have received Rs.5,00,000/- towards part of sale consideration. The remaining sale consideration was 4 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 Rs.17,38,000 /-. Ex.A2 is a receipt dated 25.11.2006 under which purchaser paid and vendor received Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, the balance sale consideration was arrived at Rs.16,38,000/-. Under Ex.A1 agreement for sale, the outer date for completing the transaction was fixed as 30.11.2006. Under Ex. A1, both parties visualize possible delays and fixed payment of interest at 24% which shall be paid by the party who committed the delay. It was agreed between the parties that on the date of registration, the vendors would give to the purchaser all the original link documents, Encumbrance Certificate for 33 years and the property tax assessments for the years 1985 to 2006. Under Ex.A1, there is a mention as to how the vendors had got the title over the property. It also mentions about certain death certificates. It further mentions about right of joint path way of a neighbour over the property that was sought to be sold. Details of those above aspects shall be considered at a later part of this judgment. It is that Ex. A1 that fell in dispute. After exchange of notices between the parties, the purchaser laid the suit. There are detailed averments in the plaint as to how the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Defendants in the written statement admitted the entire contents 5 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 and execution of the Ex. A1 agreement for sale and receipt of part sale consideration as evidenced by Ex.A1 and Ex. A2. Then it is stated that they were not at fault and they were always ready and willing to execute the registered sale deed and the plaintiff purposefully delayed the execution so as to allow the property to depreciate in its value and enjoy the money. They sought dismissal of the suit.
6. Based on the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale on 16.09.2006 with 1st and 2nd defendants who are joint owners of plaint schedule property as per partition list dated 25.05.1985 for Rs.22,38,000/- and also paid an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs to each of them towards advance and it is true valid and binding on them?
2. Whether plaintiff agreed to pay balance sale consideration i.e., 17,38,000/- to 1st and 2nd defendants on or before30.11.2006; in default to pay interest @24% p.a? 6
Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013
3. Whether the plaintiff and defendants agreed to pay interest @ 24% p.a, if they failed to comply the terms of agreement?
4. Whether plaintiff paid an amount of one lakh rupees on 25.11.2006, Rs.2.5 lakhs on 27.11.2006, Rs.2.5 lakhs on 28.11.2006, Rs.2.0 lakh on 29.11.2006 to 1st defendant and he inturn also made endorsements for the part payments ?
5. Whether plaintiff is ready and willing to perform her part of contract and also deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,38,000/- in his account on 29.11.2006 and he is entitled for equitable relief of Specific performance?
6. Whether 1st defendant is postponing the registration of sale deed from 20.11.2006 on one or other pretext as such whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction against 1st and 2nd defendants restraining them to alienate or transfer the property and also not to make any alterations or removal of structures till the disposal of suit?
7. Whether defendants are ready and willing to register the sale deed and are entitled for 24% interest on balance sale 7 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 consideration due to delay made by the plaintiff till registration of sale deed?
8. If so, to what relief?
7. Plaintiff alone testified as PW.1 and got marked Ex. A1 to A7. 1st defendant testified as DW.1 and got examined another witness as DW.2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B6.
8. After considering the evidence on both sides and submissions on both sides, the learned trial judge categorically stated that purchaser/plaintiff has always been ready and willing and there have been no latches on her part. That the entire fault is on part of the vendors/ defendants. It answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit in the following terms:
"In the result, suit is decreed with costs. Plaintiff is directed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 16,38,000/- on or before 28.02.2013 to the credit of this suit. Defendants are directed to execute registered sale deed in the name of plaintiff in pursuance of suit sale agreement within one month from the date of deposit by plaintiff. On execution of sale deed, defendants are entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by plaintiff. If the 8 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 defendants not comply the above direction, plaintiff is at liberty to approach executing court for taking sale deed and other reliefs according to law.
9. In the memorandum of grounds of appeal, these appellants reiterated their contentions stating that the purchaser was not ready and willing to perform as per the stipulations in Ex. A1.
• Time was essence of the contract • Purchaser failed to pay the balance sale consideration on or before the agreed date 30.11.2006 • It is to the knowledge of both sides that vendor intended to sell the property for meeting the educational needs of 2ndappellant/ 2nd defendant and the failure of purchaser in paying the sale consideration within the time caused huge troubles for vendors as they had to borrow money from others and had to sell out their only other property to DW.2 • Now that the vendors/ appellants have no other place to live except the suit disputed property • Trial court ought to have granted at least 24% interest over the balance sale consideration as stipulated in Ex. A1 9 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 • On facts and law, the trial court committed error and the impugned judgement shall be set aside.
At the time of hearing, certain additional points were raised by the learned counsel for appellants. It is contended that from the material on record both parties had knowledge that the property was ancestral property and the daughter of the 1st appellant died and therefore by operation of law, mother of the deceased daughter was entitled for a share and since such sharer was not a party to Ex.A1 agreement for sale the purchaser cannot maintain a suit for specific performance by virtue of Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Therefore, the following points fall for consideration in this appeal:
1. Whether the material on record disclosed that the purchaser was not ready and willing to perform her part of the obligations within the agreed time and therefore was not entitled to obtain a decree for specific performance but the trial court erroneously granted the decree in favour of the purchaser/respondent?10
Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013
2. Whether the agreement for sale/Ex.A1 is unenforceable since the appellants alone had no absolute right and title over the suit schedule property to sell the same?
3. Whether the impugned judgment cannot be maintained at law?
POINT No.1: -
10. Referring to the above grounds, this court has considered the submissions on both sides. On perusal of the material on record, the following aspects shall be noticed to evaluate the virtue of the contentions raised by the appellants.
1. 16.09.2006 - Agreement for sale was executed
2. 30.11.2006- Outer date for payment of balance sale consideration and obtaining the registered sale deed
3. 07.12.2006 - Purchaser/ plaintiff issued notice to defendants under Ex. A4
4. 08.12.2006 - Purchaser issued Ex. A5 notice for rectifying the errors printed in Ex. A4 notice
5. 20.12.2006 - Plaint was presented 11 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013
11. Thus, from the above dates, one could see that from the outer date mentioned in the agreement for sale within a week days, purchaser/ plaintiff had issued notice and within 20 days, the suit for specific performance was instituted.
12. Since according to vendors, they were in dire need of money for the educational expenses of the 2nd appellant and since an agreement for sale castes obligations on both parties, there were no hurdles for vendors to issue a notice to purchaser calling upon to perform her part of the contract or to face consequences. No such notice was initiated by the vendors.
However, the vendors had given a reply notice dated 19.12.2006 under Ex. B5. Before that was received, the purchaser filed the plaint on 20.12.2006.
13. Vendors had done a little curious thing. Without issuing any notice, they had filed Ex.B1 and B3 caveats before the civil courts. As per Ex.B2 and B4, notices on those caveats were sent to purchasers. These caveats were filed in the month of December 2006. What could have prompted them to file caveats is a matter to be observed for considering the submissions raised on both sides. It is here one has to notice certain significant 12 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 pieces of evidence. Having put in necessary pleadings, there is the sworn evidence of PW.1 referring to Ex.A7 and A3. Ex. A7 are copies of statements of account of plaintiff maintained with Andhra Bank, Gandhinagar Branch, Vijayawada. Ex.A3 is a draft sale deed. A reading of the oral evidence and these documents would show that well before the outer date/ 30.11.2006, plaintiff obtained two pay orders dated 27.11.2006 each for Rs.2,50,000/- . Plaintiff obtained two pay orders dated 28.11.2006 each for Rs.2,50,000/-. Plaintiff obtained two pay orders dated 29.11.2006 each for Rs.2,00,000/-. These were obtained payable to the vendors/appellants. There remained balance sale consideration of Rs.2,38,000/-. The consistent pleadings and the consistent evidence of PW.1 disclosed that a few days earlier to 30.11.2006 itself, she was contacting the vendors expressing her readiness and willingness and requesting them to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the registered sale deed and the defendants were seeking two to three days' time showing some excuse and it was under those circumstances, she thought that everything was ready and got Ex.A3 draft sale deed prepared and along with pay orders and with the remaining cash and balance on hand, she approached them for execution of the registered 13 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 sale deed but the defendants refused. The learned trial court examined all these evidences and concluded that the purchaser has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. The evidence mentioned above would also show tendering necessary balance sale consideration by the purchaser to the vendors. The vendors filing caveats in the next few days after these incidents would show that they wanted to scuttle the bargain and hang on to the property. Learned trial court rightly considered all these and held that purchaser was always ready and willing and default was with the vendors.
14. According to the vendors, they had two items of property. One item is the present suit disputed property. The other item is another property which they had sold out to DW.2 under the original of Ex.B6. So far as sale and purchase of that property is concerned, the fact is not in dispute and the fact is proved by the evidence of DW.2 and production of Ex.B6. This Ex.B6 was a sale deed dated 05.01.2010. Thus, this Ex. B6 occurred nearly four years after Ex. A1 agreement for sale. In Ex.B6, it is mentioned that vendors had to sell this property to discharge their debts. In Ex. A1 agreement for sale, the reason for sale is mentioned as that the property has not been fetching adequate 14 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 revenue and therefore the vendors wanted to sell it. Thus, the need for education of 2ndappellant should have arisen subsequent to Ex. A1 and prior to Ex. B6. The contention of the appellants is that since purchaser was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, they could not get their money under Ex.A1 and therefore they incurred debts. With whom they incurred debts, how much was that and what were those debts is not borne out by any evidence adduced by DW.1 and DW.2. Having received two installments of advanced sale consideration, nothing prevented these appellants to send a demand notice to purchaser asking for payment of balance sale consideration. They did not do it. The omission is indicative of the fact that at that point of time there was no further need of money for them. The fact that they filed caveats is indicative of the fact that they wanted litigation. All these aspects were rightly considered by the trial court. It in fact stated that in terms of the agreement for sale under Ex.A1 one who committed delay had to pay 24% interest per annum. It stated that the delay was on part of the defendants/ vendors only. However, generously it excused the vendors and did not direct them to pay 24% interest. Despite such well reasoned judgment, the vendors, with a view to perpetuate the litigation, have 15 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 preferred this appeal without any reasonable basis. Facts and law are in favour of the purchaser and the learned trial court rightly decreed it in favour of the purchaser. Therefore, this point is answered against the appellants.
POINT No.2 and 3
15. However, after a decade of the pendency of this appeal vendors/ appellants got a flash of law in their mind and have come up with certain brave contentions. To consider those contentions, the other terms and conditions mentioned in Ex. A1 agreement for sale are required to be noticed:
In Ex. A1, it is mentioned that 1st appellant/ Sri Ch. Rama Koteswara Rao (late) had a married daughter and his daughter and son in law died. In Ex. A1, it is mentioned that the vendors would furnish their death certificates to the purchaser at the time of registration. That the property agreed to be sold under Ex. A1 originally belonged to the ancestors namely Sri Ch. Sriramulu and Sri Ch Seetha Ramaiah and others. There was registered relinquishment deed dated 05.07.1946 among them. By virtue of that, property finally vested with Sri Ch. Sriramulu and Sri Ch. Seetha Ramaiah. They held it joint and enjoyed it with absolute 16 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 rights and both of them died intestate. Thereafter, their successors got the property orally partitioned in the year 1980. In pursuant of that oral partition, sharers were enjoying their respective shares. On 25.05.1985, a partition list was prepared. It was in such partition, the property covered by Ex. A1 fell to the exclusive share of Sri Ch. Rama Koteswara Rao/ 1st appellant (late).Then he built a house over the vacant site with his own money. Thereafter, it has been in the occupation of 1st appellant and his son/ 2nd appellant/. Sri CH. Venkata Sriram is the brother to Sri C. Rama Koteswara Rao/ 1st appellant. That said Sriram has a joint right of way over the property covered by Ex.A1. It is specially mentioned in Ex. A1, that the vendors would obtain a registered relinquishment deed from Sri Ch Sriram and would make him to participate as one of the attesting witnesses for the sale deed.
16. Additional grounds raised in this appeal revolve around the above referred contents in Ex. A1.
The forceful contention of Sri M. Radha Krishna, the learned counsel for appellants is that the property is ancestral property and it is not only the appellants but also the daughter of 17 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 1st appellant had a share in it. She died and by operation of section 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, her mother who is the wife of 1st appellant and mother of 2nd appellant succeeded that share. Since the mother who is a sharer is not a participant in Ex.A1 and is not a party to the suit, it has to be necessarily concluded that the executants of Ex.A1 had no exclusive right to sell the property. Since a co-sharer's right remained not part of the agreement and suit, there could be no decree for specific performance. Learned counsel refers to Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act and contends that the suit shall be dismissed. For this purpose, reliance is placed on Pemmada Prabhakar V. Youngmen's Vysya Association1and Gampala Naga Raju V. ShaikNazeerunnisa2. In the above referred rulings, it was held that when the vendors had no absolute right and title over the property, the agreement could not be enforced and a decree for specific performance could not be granted.
17. The next submission made on behalf of the appellants is that these appellants executed Ex.A1 agreement for sale without (2015) 5 SCC 355 1 2022 (3) ALT 447 (AP) 2 18 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 making Mr. Sriram as a party and now compelling the appellants to execute registered sale deed would deprive the title of Mr. Sriram over this property. Parties to contract cannot be forced to convey the title of a third party. It is for that reason, learned counsel urges the court that the judgment of the trial court is erroneous. On these aspects, learned counsel cited Govinda Naicken V. Apathsahaya Iyer3 and Rajendrakumar Bhandari V. Poosammal4.
18. Learned counsel for appellants further argued that the pleadings and evidence on both sides and the issues raised before the trial court and the grounds of appeal in this case, though did not disclose these aspects of the matter, yet when the court finds from the evidence, that the agreement for sale is contrary to the statute then it shall refuse to direct specific performance of it. In this regard, reliance is placed on Narayanamma V. Govindappa5. While elaborating on the aspect of succession, learned counsel cited Vineeta Sharma V. Rakesh Sharma6 and submits that daughter is a coparcener whether born 3 (1914) ILR 37 Mad 403 4 AIR 1975 MADRAS 379 5 (2019) 19 SCC 42 6 (2020) 9 SCC 1 19 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 before or after the amendment of Hindu Succession Act in the year 2005 and coparcener claims made under section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act by a daughter prior to commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not valid but claims made after the said date are valid and the death of father/1st appellant does not affect the rights of the daughter under section 6.
19. As against it, the strong reply from Sri SVR Subramanyam, the learned counsel for respondent is that without facts pleaded and proved, imaginative grounds are urged by the appellants and they cannot be countenanced. There is no material on record to know when the daughter died and whether she predeceased her husband or not and whether they had any children or not. There is no material to indicate whether the wife of 1st appellant has got any share in the property or not. If the deceased daughter also had a share and by virtue of it, on her death, if her mother had a share why she did not participate in Ex.B6 sale deed executed by these appellants in favour of DW.2 and why she did not come on record as legal representative in this appeal on the death of 1st appellant. That a suit for specific performance cannot be converted into a suit for title of a third party. If really the rights of third parties are at stake, they were at liberty to raise their pleas 20 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 by instituting necessary suit. Having executed the agreement for sale under Ex.A1 with specific mention that they are absolute owners of the property, it estops the appellants from pleading or arguing contrary to what was asserted by them all throughout. That these appellants are the only absolute owners of the property and the trial court rightly decreed the suit and there is no warrant for interference in this appeal. Learned counsel for respondent cited Mir Abdul Hakeem Khan V. Abdul Mannan Khadri7. Referring to various provisions of the Specific Relief Act, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court held that in a suit for specific performance filed by the purchaser, the vendors cannot put forward defect in their title. In a suit filed by the vendors, the purchaser is entitled to plead that the agreement for sale could not be enforced because vendors had no title or defective title. It was also ruled in this case that in a suit for specific performance filed only against the executants of the agreement for sale, there is no question of purchaser attempting to bind the interest of the persons who are not parties to the agreement for sale. The relief of specific performance cannot be refused on such grounds. Learned counsel submits that this principle has been consistently AIR 1972 (AP) 178 (DB) 7 21 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 followed by this court and cited the judgment in Puli Sitamahalakshmi V. Varre Lakshmi in S.A.No.1108 of 2000 dated 28.12.2021. Learned counsel further submits that the contentions raised by the appellants raise questions of fact as well as law and in such an event, without there being any foundation, such contentions cannot be considered and cited Sanku Veeraiah V. Sanku Veeranna8. The appellants having executed Ex.A1 with specific assertion that they were absolute owners and without the alleged holders of rights over this property coming and contesting their contentions shall be negatived in the light of the law contained in Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act and cited Thirumalasetty Santhamma V. Yenuganti Venkaiah 9
20. Having considered these vociferous submissions on both sides, this court has to state the following:
Coming to the rights of Mr.Sriram over the property, it has to be made clear that it is not the case of appellants or the respondents that Mr.Sriram is a part owner of this property. As 2014 (6) ALT 370 8 9 2013 (6) ALT 664.22
Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 per Ex.A1, it is the disclosure from the appellants themselves that the rights of Mr.Sriram are limited to a joint path way and nothing else. To say whether Mr.Sriram do hold any other rights, what was required was to have the evidence of Mr.Sriram. Mr. Sriram is the relative of these appellants. They did not choose to examine him. A joint path way between Mr.Sriram and these appellants is a matter of easement and an easement is attached to the property and change of ownership in the property by itself is no violation of rights of easement. There is no need in this case to decide whether that easement rights are still subsisting or not. What was relevant for consideration here is only about presence or absence of Mr.Sriram in the context of enforceability or otherwise of Ex.A1 agreement for sale. The appellants made two promises to the respondents herein.
Promise No.1 is that they would obtain a registered relinquishment deed from Mr.Sriram. They failed to do it.
Promise No.2 is that they would see that Mr.Sriram would attest the regular registered sale deed. That also seems not materialized.23
Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 What emerges is that appellants having broken their own promises wanted to thrive and build a story and perpetuate the litigation without any basis in law or facts.
21. Even as per Ex.A1 agreement for sale, the daughter and son in law of 1st appellant were no more by then. Ex.A1 does not mention whether wife of 1st appellant who is the mother of 2nd appellant was alive by the time of Ex.A1 or not. More importantly, even as per Ex.A1, there was registered relinquishment deed dated 15.07.1946 and a partition list dated 25.05.1985. Nothing prevented these appellants from exhibiting those documents before the court below. Without making them part of the record, appellants argue here about the rights of the deceased daughter and the mother of the deceased daughter. Both in Ex.A1 and Ex.B6 executed by these appellants in favour of DW.2, their specific assertion is that the 1st appellant has been the absolute owner of these properties. The suit for specific performance is not filed by the vendors. It was filed by the purchaser. It is relevant to notice Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which reads as below:
24
Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 Contract to sell or let property by one who has no title, not specifically enforceable.--
(1) A contract to sell or let any immovable property cannot be specifically enforced in favour of a vendor or lessor--
(a) who, knowing himself not to have any title to the property, has contracted to sell or let the property;
(b) who, though he entered into the contract believing that he had a good title to the property, cannot at the time fixed by the parties or by the court for the completion of the sale or letting, give the purchaser or lessee a title free from reasonable doubt.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall also apply, as far as may be, to contracts for the sale or hire of movable property Sub-Section 1 makes it very clear that any suit filed by the vendors seeking specific performance of an agreement for sale, the court cannot grant specific performance in favour of the vendor if the vendors had no title or had defect in the title. Even, 25 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 as per Ex.A1, oral partition took place in the year 1980 and since then, 1st appellant is stated to have been in absolute control and enjoyment over this property. What he got under oral partition was an open site as per Ex.A1 and he with his own earnings, built a house over it and then he has been continuously enjoying it.
The written arguments filed in the form of a memo on behalf of appellants along with the rulings while referring to Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma's case (mentioned supra6) what is mentioned is extracted here:
"Coparcenary claims made under section 6 by a daughter prior to the commencement of the amendment of the act are not valid. Claims made after the said date are valid as per the judgment."
Whether 1st appellant's daughter died with children or without children. Whether the wife of 1st appellant who allegedly succeeded the estate of her daughter was alive or not are all the crucial facts. Without making crucial facts available, appellants pursue this litigation citing the law which has no relevance to the facts available on hand. It has to be noted that the application of law arises on the facts that are to be established. In all the rulings cited for the appellants, it was available facts which enabled the 26 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 respective courts to lay down their rulings and enunciate the law. In the present case, appellants have been citing the law and wanted the court to read the facts to suit the rulings which is impermissible. The observations of the trial court that it is these appellants who have been at fault and have been avoiding the contractual obligations is fully justified. All the grounds urged in the subsequent phase of this appeal by way of additional grounds have absolutely no merit in the context of everything that is available on record. Hence, these points are answered against the appellants.
22. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Appellants shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs all throughout to the respondent. Consequently, judgment dated 27.12.2012 in O.S.No.141 of 2006 of learned XIII Additional District Judge, Krishna District at Vijayawada is confirmed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 23.09.2024 Dvs 27 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR APPEAL SUIT No.553 of 2013 Date: 23.09.2024 Dvs