Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The suit schedule property is an extent of Acs.5.05 Gts., in Sy.Nos.95 to 99 of Medipally Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (presently Medchal - Malkajgiri District).

5. The respondents/defendants are admittedly the owners of the suit schedule property.

Contentions of the appellants/plaintiffs in the suit

6. The appellants contended that the respondents agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.2.4 Crores per acre; that they had paid a sum of Rs.2.45 Crores at the time of execution of the agreement, and that the balance consideration is payable in three (3) quarterly instalments within 9 months from the date of release of the approved layout by HMDA. They also contended that the fee and other expenses for obtaining approved layout from the HMDA were paid by the appellants though the Application for such layout was made by the respondents and that the appellants had incurred an expenditure of Rs.60,00,000/- for the said purpose. They also alleged that they had paid a sum of Rs.3.42 Crores to the respondents from time to time on account of the above agreement of sale.

7. According to the appellants, the respondents did not pursue the layout approval with the HMDA authorities; that there were also certain Court cases pending in respect of the suit land; and so the appellants requested the respondents to clear the Court cases so that the balance sale consideration amount can be paid, but the respondents did not react.

8. The appellants contended that they are always ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale; that they had also issued Ex.P2 legal notice on 04.11.2018 calling upon the respondents to receive the balance sale consideration amount and come forward for registration of regular sale deed in favour of the appellants; that the said legal notice was returned unserved with an endorsement that no such person was residing in the said address; and the respondents have avoided service of the said legal notice in collusion with the postal authorities.

15. They alleged that the balance consideration was payable in three quarterly instalments within 9 months from the date of release of the approved layout from the HMDA.

16. According to them, the respondents are also supposed to contribute for obtaining HMDA approved layout, but they paid only part payment of the said contribution. They denied that the appellants have paid Rs.60,00,000/- towards expenditure for obtaining approval.

17. According to them, draft layout was granted in October, 2015 and that according to the draft layout, they made house plots. They denied receipt of Rs.3.22 Crores consideration from the appellants on account of the agreement of sale. According to them, payments were not made within the time stipulated in the agreement, but were made over a long period of time till 2017. They also alleged that some of the receipts filed by the appellants are not connected to the transaction and are created.

The consideration by the Court

46. We have noted the contentions of both sides.

47. We shall first refer to the terms of the agreement of sale dt.24.01.2013.

48. Clause (1) of the said agreement records that the respondents have agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the appellants at Rs.2.4 Crores per acre and that a sum of Rs.2.45 Crores was received by the respondents from the appellants towards part sale consideration.

49. Clause (2) refers to the application made by the respondents to the HMDA for approval of layout in respect of Acs.9.39 Gts. in Sy.Nos.95 to 99 of Medipally Village and the pendency of the same with HMDA. It also records that the appellants have agreed to pay balance sale consideration to the respondents in three quarterly equal instalments within 9 months from the date of receipt of the approved layout by the HMDA.