Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Defendant No. 4 also filed O.S. No. 19 of 1986 on the file of the V Additional Judge for refund of half of the earnest money and also for damages with a view to create hurdles and complications in the claim of the plaintiff for specific performance. Therefore, the plaintiff was compelled to file O.S. No. 171 of 1986, which was renumbered as O.S. No. 21 of 1993, for mandatory injunction and to obtain a separate layout to the suit schedule property, which shows the plaintiffs willingness to perform his part of contract. After the plaint was amended by adding Para 10-A, the main contention was that defendant No. 4 colluded with defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to defeat and undermine the rights of the plaintiff. As per the agreement of sale, the transaction shall be completed within six months from the release of tentative layout from the BUDA. Since the suit land is covered by the agreement of sale, dated 23.4.1984, it is the responsibility of the vendees to obtain permission for separate layout sanctioning the division of the land into residential plots with their own expenses after obtaining layout sanction from HUDA and the sale has to be completed within six months from the release of the tentative layout.

20. The plaintiff, who examined himself as P.W. 1 admitted that defendant No. 4 is his joint agreement holder and that he is no more. Defendant No. 5 is the legal representative of defendant No. 4. The agreement was obtained in his name and in the name of defendant No. 4 and the advance amount was paid by both of them. Within 8 months of obtaining a tentative layout from BUDA, the balance of sale consideration is to be paid. He purchased about 90 acres of land in Survey Nos. 643 to 658, which is the rear of the land covered by the agreement of sale. The owners have to apply for layout. On 13.2.1985, they have paid layout fees as demanded by the owners. Ex. A.3 is the certified copy of the receipt, which shows that they have paid layout fees. He was informed by way of legal notice in the second week of June, 1985 regarding release of layout by the legal heirs of late Yadagiri and others. But the tentative layout was not handed over to him. A single and joint layout was prepared for this suit land and other adjoining lands. The said layout was released approximately for 75 acres. He does not know the reason as to why the said layout was released in the name of S. Yadagiri and others. As per the directions of the High Court a layout copy was supplied to him in 1988. He did not divide the land into plots and lay the roads, as by that time he came to know that civil appeal in C.C.C.A. No. 34 of 1980 was pending in the High Court. He approached Ramesh K. Bhai, General Power of Attorney Holder of defendants 1 to 3 number of times to de-link the layout of Survey No. 36 from other lands. He has to apply for separate layout for the said land before HUDA. Ex.A.4 is the Xerox copy of the legal notice, dated 3.7.1985, issued to him and defendant No. 4, for which he has sent a reply notice on 24.7.1985. Ex. A.9 is the certified copy of the letter dated 10.1.1985 from HUDA to S. Yadagiri and Ex. A.10 is the certified copy of the letter, dated 26.4.1985 addressed to S. Yadagiri by HUDA showing him as owner of the land including Survey No. 36 of Satamrai Village. Ex. A.14 is the legal notice issued on behalf of the vendors to him and defendant No. 4. He did not receive the copy of Ex. A.14, but he took it when he happened to meet the General Power of Attorney Holder of the vendors. By that time, Khasim Ali (defendant No. 4) filed suit against the vendors. He filed I.A. No. 486 of 1986 in I.A. No. 7 of 1986 in O.S. No. 19 of 1986 to implead him as a party to the suit. The vendors did not appear in C.M.A. No. 117 of 1987 filed by Khasim Ali and it was dismissed as withdrawn since it has become infructuous as O.S. No. 19 of 1986 was withdrawn by the legal heirs of Khasim Ali. Defendants 1 to 3 filed O.S. No. 679 of 1986 on 16.6.1986 for damages of Rs. 1,50,000/- against him and Khasim Ali, who died on 19.4.1987.

22. Against the above evidence, the General Power of Attorney Holder of defendants 1 to 3 was examined as D.W. 1. He stated that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, it is the purchaser who has to get the land measured, divide, submit and obtain layout. The balance of sale consideration has to be paid within six months from the date of release of tentative layout by HUDA. The son of Yadagiri by name Suresh gave the copy of the layout to defendant No. 4 under an acknowledgment. The plaintiff and defendant No.4 could not develop the land as they have no money and on account of inter se disputes between them, he got issued a legal notice to the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 after three months of issuance of tentative layout informing them about the non-development of the property and the same was received by the plaintiff and defendant No. 4. Through the said notice it was informed to the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 that if they fail to develop the suit lands by laying roads and fail to comply with the terms of tentative layout, the agreement would be cancelled.

25. It is not pleaded by the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 that they were ready with a separate layout plan for the suit land and forwarded the same to defendants 1 to 3 for their signatures for enabling them to apply for separate layout as undertaken by them under the agreement. In view of the same, they never expressed their willingness to perform their part of contract, namely, developing the lands on receiving the tentative layout from the HUDA and payment of balance of sale consideration within six months from the release of the tentative layout by HUDA i.e., from 25/ 26.4.1985 (Ex. A.10), but insisted defendants 1 to 3 for obtaining separate layout for the lands covered by the agreement to gain time, and joint purchaser-defendant No. 4 choose to rescind the contract by filing O.S. No. 19 of 1986. Therefore, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff miserably failed to perform his part of contract, which disentitled him to enforce the said agreement. The point No. 1 is answered accordingly.