Second appeal dismissed specific performance claim due to lack of readiness. Court held amounts paid were advance consideration, not earnest money, and ordered refund of Rs.15,000 with interest.
Specific performance denied; refund of Rs.15,000 with 7.5% interest ordered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY ,THE FIFTEENTHDAYOF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
SECOND APPEAL NO: 289 OF2022
Appeat uMer section 100 ofC.P.C. against the Judgmentand Decree dated 02.03.2022 in A.S.No. 011201Bon the file of ll Addl. Districtand sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.Preferred againstthe Judgment and Decreein O.S. 135/2008, dated 20.1 1.2017on the file of the Addl. JuniorCivilJudge-Cum- XVll M.fM, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar
Between:
Allam Mukundam, S/o. Late Sri Kistaiah,Aged about 63 years, Occ. Business' R/o. H.No.7-68, Palamakula, ShamshabadMandal, Ranga Reddy District.
...AppellanUPlaintiff
AND
All are Fl/o. H. No. 3-33, PalamakulaVillage, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
...Respondents/Defendants
Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. KOTHAJANARDHANREDDY
Counsel forthe Respondents: NONEAPPEARED
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
lt
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN
SECOND APPEAL No.289 OF 2022
,IUDGMENT:
2
ML,JSA No.289 of 2022 SA No.2B9 of 2C22 Reddy District. The said property was agreed to sell to the plaintiff lbr a sale consideration of Rs.45,000/-. The terms of agieement of sale were reduced into writing on 31.05.1999 and on the said date a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid. One of the condition in the terms of agreement of sale was that the balance sale consideration should be paid within i5 days from the date of agreement of sale. Subsequently, the plaintiff paid Rs.5,000/- on 07.07.1999, and a sum of Rs.3,000/- on 19.08.1999 and Rs.2,000/- on 08.05.2001. In total, he has paid Rs.15,000/-. The suit is filed when the defendant No. 1 refused to receive the balance sale consideration and did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Hence, the present suit.
_)
ML,JSA No.289 of 2022 SA No.289 of 2022
3. To what reliefl
"whether both coufts have justified in not ordering refund of sale price paid by the plaintiff when there is refusal to enforce the contract?,,
4
ML,JSA No.289 of 2022 SA No.289 of 2O22 was filed in the year 2008 and agreement of sale was 1999. Till then, no material has been placed by the plaintiff to show that he was ready with the money. The quantum of money and different dates on which, the plaintiff paid money would show that he was not ready with money. Therefore, both the Courts below have exercised their discretion in not granting the relief and such findings require no interference.
'Appeal SuitNos.236l & 24292OOl, dated22-12-2021
5
-7
MLJSA No.289 of 2022 SA No.289 of 2022
contract, such amounts cannot be termed as eamest money. Therefore, the Courts below ought to have ordered for refund of amounts paid by the plaintiff to the defendants which is not disputed by the defendant No.l However, the defendant No.l claimed it as loan amount. Such plea was not accepted by both the Courts below. Therefore, the defendants are under the obligation to refund such money. Accordingly, thispoint is answered.
i) The finding of both the Courts below in denying the specif,rc performance is confirmed.
ii) The defendants are directed to refund Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) which their father i.e., defendant No.l received towards advance sale consideration from the plaintiff within two months from the date of thisjudgment. If the amount is not paid within two months, defendants are liable to pay interest @7 5% p.a. on the said amount till the amount is paid. There shall be encumbrance on the suit property for such amount until it is paid.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/. B.S. GHIRANJEEVI JOINT,R.EGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// c:[) SECTION OFFICER
I
To,
kam
<br>
HIGH COURT
DATED:1 510912022
JUDGMENT
SA.No.289 of 2022
?. ).-:
t i.)
).
+
oG 0 2 Fla 21,t3 z I
t:'j
*
<br>
DISPOSING OFTIIE SECONDAPPEAL
{n ?\r\t1
3 issues framed by the court
Whether both courts were justified in not ordering a refund of the sale consideration paid by the plaintiff when refusing to enforce the contract?
Whether the amounts paid by the plaintiff could be termed as earnest money to warrant a return of money relief under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act?
Whether the finding of the lower courts in denying specific performance, due to lack of readiness and willingness, should be interfered with?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gurram Hanumantha Rao V. Gurram Ilanumantha RaoFollowed¶44
Gurram Hanumantha Rao V. Gurram Ilanumantha Rao
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Allam Mukundam
T. Lalitha
T. Naveen
T. Shravan
M. Laxman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
