Allowed

Andhra pradesh Industrial Infrastucture co., Ltd., v. a.K.Sagar (died)

Telangana HC14 Sept 2023AS/987/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a decree for specific performance of a land sale contract. The court held no enforceable contract existed for the balance land due to the plaintiff's failure to accept the defendant's counter-offer, lack of readiness and willingness to pay the full amount, and the invalidity of the assignment of interest by change of party.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree dated 31.12.1992 in O.S.No.47 of 1982 were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.

Andhra pradesh Industrial Infrastucture co., Ltd., Vs… — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[32r61

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTETVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN

¶6

APPEAL SUIT No: 987 of 1993

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 31-12-1992^passed in^O.S.No.47 of^{1982on the frle} of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, at Sangareddy.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Andhra Pradesh lndustrial lnfrastructure co.,^{Ltd-, Rep. by itsM-D.}

¶10

..Appe lla n t/Defend a n ts

¶11

AND

¶12

1 A.K.Sagar (died), Operation, APSE Board Khammam

¶13

2 smt. A.Devagiri,

¶14

RRs. 2 to 5 are brought on record as Lrs. of deceased¹¹ vide^{court order} dt.16-7-96 in CMP.7553 of 96.

¶15

SMT. P.Aruna Sagar,

¶16

RRs. 2 to 5 are brought on record^as Lrs.^{of deceased11 vide court order} dt.16-7-96 in CMP.7553 of 96.

¶17

Miss. A.Srilakshmi,

¶18

RRs. 2 to 5 are brought on record as Lrs. of^{deceased11 vide court order} dt.16-7-96 in CMP.7553 of^96.

¶19

5- Smt. P.Sridevi Satish,

¶20

RRs. 2 to 5 are brought on^record as^{Lrs. of deceased11 vide court order} dt.16-7-96 in CMP.7553 of^96.

¶21

Ghansham Shewak Ramani ,^{S/o- Jammadas,}

¶22

R-No.6 is impleaded as^{party RespondentVide court orderof 2-8-2001 in} CMP.262 ot 2OO1. ...Respondents/Pla intiffs

¶23

,:i::,5',',

¶24

ASMP. NO:^'1003 oF 2009

¶25

Petrtion under Order 41 Rule 19 Sertion 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in srrpport of the petition, th; High court may be pleased set aside the orders dat()d 5_9-2006 dismissing the" appeal 1! l" 991^{ol 1993 3gainst the respondent Nos.2 to 6 andrestole} the appeat A.S.No.987 ol 1 993.

¶26

ASMP. NO:1004OF 20 09

¶27

. Petition under Order g Rule g r/w Se<;tion 151 of CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, thJ High court may be pleased pass orders for restoration o[ cMp No.3s1 ot z0o7 in R.siNo.sgz of 1993 dated 22-1O-2OOB.

¶28

ASMP. NO:841 oF 2010

¶29

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, f e uigh court may be preased permit the petitioner lo take out substituted service, und6r order 5 Rute Zd 1t _n1 CeC of the notice in A.S.lr.4.p No.1O02 of 2O1O cn Respondent Nos. 2,4 "nO^{S UV} publication in a news paper having circulttion in the city of HyderaOad anO Sangareddy, where the suit property is situaled.

¶30

ASMP. NO: 1002 0F 2009

¶31

Petition under Order 41 Rute 19 Se:tion 151 C.p.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in r;upport of the petition, th; High court may be pleased set aside the orders dat,ld 19-9-2006 dismissing tne" appeai A.S.No.987 of 1993 and readmit the same.

¶32

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶33

Petition under Order 31 Rule 2l of lpC R/w of CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, th6 uigtr court may be pleased to receive the documents as additionar evidence ano riarr tre same as exhibits on beharf defendant/appelant/petitioner herein in the interest oi ,usrce,

¶34

CMP. N O: 7425 0F 1993

¶35

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affi_davit filed in support of the petitiorr, ine Uigh Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the judgment anc decree in o.s.No.47'of tsiaz, on tlre file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sangareddy, pending disposal of the above Regular Appeal.

¶36

CMP. NO: 7ss3 OF 1996

¶37

Petition uoder Orde( 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supporl of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to bring the respondents herein on record in the above regular Appeal as the legal Representatives of the deceased sole respondent (A-K.Sagar), and them as Respondents-2 to 5.

¶38

GMP. NO: 7426 OF 1993

¶39

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in th6 affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to} direct the respondent to renew the specialised deposit^{AccountNo.133 dated 2-8-} 83 together with interest lhereon in the Punjab^{NationalBank,Sanatnagarbranch} Sanatnagar, Hyderabad.

¶40

Counsel for the Appellant:^{THE ADVOCATE GENERAL}

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI V. VENKATARAMANA

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent No.6:^{SRIV. HANUMANTHRAO}

¶43

Counsel for the Respondents No.2,4^& 5:^NoneAppeared

¶44

The Court delivered the following:^JUDGMENT

¶45

THE HON'BLE SRI JUS'I'ICE M. LAXMAN

¶46

4^PPEALSUI T No.9,87 of 1993

¶47

JUDGMENT:

¶48

The present appeal assails -udgment arrd decree dated 31.12.1992 in O.S.No.47 ot l9B2 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Sanagareddv, (hereinarfter referred -o as^,Court below,), wherein arrd whereby the suit filed by the respondent herein for specific performancc of contract u.as partl,z decreed. Aggrieved by the same, Lhe present appeal is filed at the instance of the defendant.

¶49

The appellalt herein is the rcspondent and the respondent herein is the plaintilf beforc the Crurt below. Initially, the suit beforc the Court belorv was liled by M/s. Sai Automatic Bricks and Clav Structurals Limited, who was original plaintiff, but subsequently, in vlew of amendment, one Mr. A.K.Sagar, S/o. Seetha Ramaiah, who is direcror of original plaintiff, becarne the plaintiff.

¶50

The sum and substance o[ the case of the original plaintiff is that it had made an application to the defendant to atlot land about Ac. 120-OO guntas in Indur;trial Development Area (lDA), Phase- II, Patancheru. The defendalt, after obtaining a report from the Regional Research Labc ratory, Hyderabad, which was given after conducting thc nocessary tests regarding the /

¶51

¶52

suitability of land for malufacturing bricks over^{the suit lard,} allotted the suit land to the plaintiff. O r-r 15.03.1975,^{the plarntiff} paid an amount of Rs.5,OO0/-^to the^{defendanttowards initial} deposit, and on 11.07 .1975,^{the defendant issued order allotting} lald to an extent of Ac.^{120-00 in Industria-l DevelopmentArea,} Phase-ll, Patancheru, on an^{outright sale basis at provisionalrate} of Rs.4,6OO/-^per acre.^{The said allotmentorder contained other} terms and conditions.^{The plaintilf paid anamount ol} Rs.55,00O/-, which is^{equivalent to 507o of the total costfor} Ac.25-00 of land,^{as stipulatedby the defendantUponthe same,} the defendant^{gavepossession of the land to the plaintiffThe} terms and conditions^{of the allotment also require paymentof} 5O% of the^{provisionatland cost for the entire areaof Ac' 120-00} guntas which comes to^{Rs.2,70,OO0/- and the same had to be} paid on or before 10.09.1975.^{Accordingto the terms, the} balance 50% i.e.,^{Rs.2,70,O00/-,which is equal to 5070 of the} provisional cost of^{the property,had to be paid within a periodof} six months and such^{amount carriesinterest at l2o/o per annum'} ln order to secure^{such payment, the plaintiffis required to} execute a^{promissorynote and further, if the said amount is not} paid after six months,^{suctr amount shall carry 18olo interestper} annum. The registration^{of land will be made by the defendant}

¶53

onlv on cornplction of constructio:r of at least lactory buildings and estabiishment of machinery by plaintiff.

¶54

The plaintiff also paid an amount of Rs.5,00O/_ towards Ac.95-O0 guntas land, q,hich was reserved lor raw materia-l and situated adjacenr to land to an extent of Ac.25-00 guntas which was already allotted arrd possession was delivered under execution of agreement of sale in terms of allotment letter. On 03.12.1975, the plaintilf addresr;ed letter to Zonal Engineer Construction Division o[ the def:ndalt lor finalization of the possession of the larLd, in pursuance of which the Zonal Engineer uide letter dated 23. 12.l9Z S iniormed that an amount of Rs.a,SOO/ per acrc which lvas :entatively fixed per acre was exclusive o[ the development ,:harges and the sarne was undeveloped land only. Aiter the said clarification, the plaintiff had to pay 5Oo% balarce amount <;f Rs.57, lg3_75/_ towards cost of Ac.25- 16 guntas in respect of land to which possession was delivered to the plaintiff. On furnishing 1ay out plan, the plaintiff found that only Ac. 1 1O-0O guntasr was there and the sarne was submitted to Director of Industries and Inspector of Factories. Further, there was no mention of survey numbers in the layout, but, later survey numbers rvere furnished. The plaintiff invested huge amount ror creating infras,-ructure. The defendant was

¶55

¶56

constantly changing the prices of the land. Through letter dated 04.O8.1977, the defendant proposed Rs.6,000/- per acre^and later, it was changed to Rs.10,00O/- per acre and^{it was further} reduced to Rs.9,OOO/- per^acre, contrary to the^{originalmarket} p[ice. The plaintiff insisted for allotment of land^{on original} tentative price, but the^{same was} not accepted.^{Subsequently,} the defendant by letter^{dated03.O3.1978deducted Rs.1,00,000/-} out of Rs.2,15,322 /-,^{r,r'hichwas sarctioned towardscentral} subsidy and amount^{was adjusted to half of the costof the entire} tand of Ac.¹ 1O-OO^{guntas, which was in possession of plaintiff'} The baiance amount^{of Rs. 1} ,^{15,32 2} I^{- wasonly paid by plaintiff'} By March, 1978,^{the plaintiff altogetherpaid an amountof} Rs.2,95,6O71-,whichisoverhalfofthecostoftheentireextentof land.Thedefendantthroughletterdated2o'02.I98lcarrcelled the allotment^{of Ac.95-0O guntas of land'Upon -the same'the} original^{plaintiff addressedletter apprisingthe circumstartces} under^{which the plaintiff had requesteddefendantfor allotmentof} Ac.120-0O^{guntas of iand for the industry and requestedthe} defendant^{reconsiderthe canceliation order' As there was no} response^{from the defendant' the present suit was hled'}

¶57

¶58

The case^{of the defendantis that itadmits allotment of} Ac.120-0O^{guntas in favour of the original plaintiffThe said}

¶59

¶60

,r'

¶61

allotment \/as conditional allotment contemplating va_rious conditions. One of them is that 50,/o of the land cost had to be paid within stipulared rime i.e., on or before 10.09.1975. The tentative price fixed was Rs.4,5OO/_ per acre, which is revisable. There were claims from the originaj land owners before the Civil Courts for enhancement of mzrrket value. The plarntiff also did not pay half of the amount as rerluired under the condition of allotment arrd only pard Rs.55,O0O,,. Subsequently, the plaintiff expressed its inability to pav entire balance amount for the entire extent. Further, the plaintiff has not paid any amount for balance land u,ithin a period of six months as required under allotment. It is also one of the conditions of allotment that the plaintiff shall execute an agreement on the non -judicial starnp paper, but the plaintiff executed agreement of salt: for Ac.25_0O guntas only. The plaintiff failed to comply rvith the conditions required under allotment for the balance of land of Ac.9S_OO guntas. The amounts paid by the plaintiff werr: in respect of balance price for the Ac.25-00 land for which 4g1s1;rn6n1 was already entered and possession was given to the plaintiff for establishment of the factory. Such amounts were adjusted towards the compensation enhancecl by the Civil Court. The plarntiff was offered Rs.5,000/ per acre for balance ,f i;:d. However, the plain dff did not agree and it did not express its rea dinesrs and willingness to perform its

¶62

¶63

¶64

part of obtigation^{under the contract'Further' the defendant} offered the^{remainingextent of land for price at Rs'9'00o/-per} acre, which^{was also not agreed by plaintiff'Even after} cancellation^{of the allotmentletter' there wasoffer to sell the land} at Rs.25/-^{per sq' yard' which was also not agreedby the plaintiff'} Further,^{the factory and land was auctionedand the sarne were} purchased^byM /^{s Lite Creat Constructions PrivateLimited in} open auction.^{The defendant claimed that there is no agreement} so as to^{grant reiief ofspecific performanceon the above} pleadings.^{Hence,the defendants prayedto dismiss the suit'}

¶65

On the^{basis of the above pleadings' issues No' 1 and 2 were} framed and^{subsequently,after amendment of plaint'issueNos3} and 4^{were framedbY the Court below:}

¶66

" l. Whether the^{plaintiffis entitled for specific} Performance^{of its agreement?}

¶67

To wha t^relieP

¶68

Whether is^{anyprivityof coniract between the plaintiff} and defendant^corPoration?

¶69

4 Whether the^{ptaintifftakingover} PV Ylt;B*-iSl,"V structurals^{by forming partnership whlch rt and tnen} g.r,t.,g iii"^{..,i." i," i"egal,validand. binding on the} defendant^{corporatlon and what is the effect of not} Iir.-in.go".tirission^{bv the defendant corporation?"}

¶70

¶71

,/,,

¶72

The plaintiff, in support of his case, got examinecl p.Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked Ilxs.A-l ro A_10. The defendant got examined D.W. 1 and got marked Exs.B- 1 to B_ 10, in support ol.their case.

¶73

B. The Court belou, found that ttrere is a contract between the palties and consequently, suit for specific performarce was grarted by fixing enharced sale consideration by itself and such judgment and decree is under challe,nge before this Court.

¶74

9. Heard both sides

¶75

In vieu, of the above, the following points emerge for consrderation in the present appeal:

¶76

" 1. Whelher thc contract of sale exists between the plaintiff and defendant so i1s to enforce such a contract?

¶77

2 Whcther if contract of sale exists, was the plarntiff always ready and willing to perform his part of obligation undcr the contract?

¶78

3 Whether the assignment oI interest by M/s. Sai Automatic Bricks and Clay Struciurats Limited, rvhich was renamed as La;<mi Bricks and Ciav Structurals Limited in favour of Mr. A.K.Sagar, who is present plaintiff subseque.rtly, is valid o. .rot?

¶79

Point No. 1:

¶80

1 i. The facts which are not in c ispute are that the defendant corporation made aliotment o: Ac.120_00 guntas under Ex A 2lB-1 letter and the said aLllotment is conditional. The conditions under the said allotmenl_ letter are as follows:

¶81

¶82

"(i) that thc rate of land mentioned above is provisional^and subject to revision al an) timc.

¶83

(ii) Lhat the ratc is exclusive of^deve lopmcnt charges,^islaying of an approach road to bring^water linc upto the^{periphery of} the site in due course.

¶84

(iii) that the allotee shalt pay^50% of Lhe^{provisional land cost} which works out to Rs'2,70,000/-^{(RupeesTwo lakhs and} seventy thousand only) on^{or before lO-9-1975fromthe date} of receipt of this order, Iess an amount^of Rs.55,0OO/ - already paid by you.

¶85

(iv) that the allottee shall pay^the remaining^{provisionalcost} of the land i.e.,Rs.2,70,0OO/^{-(Rupees Two lakhsand seventy} thousand only) within^{a perioci o[ skmonths from the date of} issue of these orders,^{which shall bearinterest at12o/o per} annum for which he^{shatlexecutea promissory note in favour} of the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure^{Corporation Limited'}

¶86

(v) thaL the alloLtee shall^{pay interestat the ratcol 18%oper} annum after the^{flrst 6 monthsis over in case o[default'}

¶87

(vi) that the registration of^{thc land will be made in favour of} ihe allottee only after^{paymentofentire amount and} completion of construclion^{o[ atleast factory buildingsand} purchase of machinery.

¶88

(vii) that the allottee^{shou ld execute an agreement in the form} enclosed on a Non-judicial^{stamp paperworth Rs 5/-'}

¶89

(viii) that the allottee^{should producea letterof} Intent/D.G.T.D.^{Registration obtained from theGovernment} of India/ S.S.l Registration^{Certificateby} the Department of Industries. Only on^{production of} the same the land will be handed over^{to the allottee."}

¶90

L2. It is not in^{dispute that the plaintiffdid not pay half of the} tentative sale^{price to the defendant within stipulatedtime, as} agreed. The^{ptaintiffonly paid an arnount of Rs'55,OO0/-whichis} half of the cost of Ac.25-00^{guntasof land which is also tentative} cost. The price was fixed tentatively^{on accolrnt of future} enhancement of compensation^{at the instance of original land}

¶91

¶92

owncrs from u,hom the land wrts acquired for industrial development. l.-urther, it is also nc,t in dispute that remaining balance of 5O%r of total land was to be paid within six months from the date lixed for payment of firr;t 5O%o of the amount.

¶93

It is also not in dispute that ttLe plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement of sale in respect of Ac.25-0O guntas with terms and conditions laid dowrr in the allotment letter. The evidence on rccord sholl,s that the plaintiff had been insisting the defcndan t for lixation ol final price, but the defendart could not fi-x the final price [or the reasc n that there is chance of enhancemcn t ol land price by refer-ence Court and other higher Courts, and the same is not in their hands. The fixation of price is subjcct to fixation of compensa.tion on claims made by the original o\ rners, r.l,hose lands v/ere acquired for industrial der.elopment. Further fact is that the .correspondence which are on record rvould shoq, that the plaintiff had been insisting the defendant corporation for allotting land to them at Rs.4,5OO/- per acre as it r.r,as agreed in the a-llotment letter. The a-llotment order shou,s that 50(/o of the land price '*hich is tentatively agreed sha_ll be paid within cut-off date; and for the balance 5Oo/o of the land, thc pavment had to be done within six months from that date. Apart lrom that, the plaintiff wa.s also requircd to execute a

¶94

I(]

¶95

promissory note for the balalce 50%o amount,^{afterpayingthe} first instalment along with^interest @,12o/o^{per annumon thc} balance price. There is^{a condition that in case balance amount} for 5O% is not^pa-id within^{six monthsfrom the date of original} date fixed for^{payment of first instalment, suchamountcarries} enhanced interest @187o^{per arnum.}

¶96

A reading^of the^{entire evidence on recordwould show that} the application^of M/s.^{Sai AutomaticBricks and Clay Structurals} Limited was^{only an offer to purchasethe land for establishment} of factory in the^{industrialarea Later, the allotmentis in the} nature of^{counter-offeru'ith certain conditions There would be} the contract, if^{conditionsimposedin the countcr-offerare agreed} by the plaintiff.^{Such agreementhas to be expressed in the} manner detailed^{under the conditions of a-llotment'One of the} conditions for^{acceptanceis payment ofamount within the} stipulated^{time and the second requirementis that in order to} secure such^{payment, the plarntiff is required to executea} promissory note^{and third requirementis to execute Agreementof} Sale.

¶97

In the^{presentcase, the agreementwas executed only for the} land admeasuring^{Ac.2S-OO guntas arrd such agreement was} executedimmediatelyafterpaymcntoffirBtinstalmentof5o%

¶98

¶99

,/t/

¶100

anci sllbsequcntl-v, Rs.57,OO0/ ('as paid towards second irstalmcnt *'l'rich resurted in execuLion of agreement of sale for land admeasuring Ac.25 OO guntas

¶101

As per thc: ev[dsnss on record, the conditions o[ agreement states that the land cannot be sublt:t without the permission ol the deferrdan t-Corpora tron. The evidence of the plarntiff also shows that there have been continuous efforts from the plaintiff,s side to fix the final price which the defendant cannot do. The tentative fixzrtion was done only to meet the contingencies of Iiabilitl, q.hich rvould arise on account of awards passed by the Re ft:rcncc Court and other higher Courts in respect of lands acquircd rvitlr regard to fixation of fa,ir price. The tentative price was originaill. fixcd basing on the award passed by the Land Acquisition Otlicer and such award was challenged before the Reference court by the land losers a,d the decisions of the Reference Court and the appellate Cc,urt are relevant factors to fix the final price. The ptaintiff, instea<l of harping upon fixation of final price, went on insisting the del.endant to accept 50% of the price (zr) Rs.4,500/- per acre even aft,:r the time lxed for payment of such antount. The lirst instalment was contemplated towards developmert charges for crever.pment of the raad, whereas the plaintill had becn insisting the deferrdant not to develop the Iand

¶102

¶103

ard the plaintifi himsetf^wanted to undertake^{development of} land. These acts of the^{plaintiff clearly demonstrate that there} was no acceptance of counter-offer^{made by the defendant in} respect of the balance land.^{When the counter-offer has not been} accepted, there is no^{question of existence of any enforceable} contract between^{the partiesfor balance land' Unfortunately'the} Court below has^{not taken into account this aspect.Absolutely,} there is no^{contractbetweenthe parties for the balance land and} hcnce, thc^{plaintiffcannot seek specific performanceof sucha} contract.^{Therefore,the findings of the Court below in this regard} arc required to^{be set aside. Accordingly,this point is decided in} lavour of the^defendant.

¶104

Issue No.2:

¶105

17 . The Court^{below has not at all advertedto the primary} requirement of^{suit for specific performance The primary} requirement is^{that even ifthe agreementexists between the} parties, which^{is sought to be enforced, the Court is requiredto} testthereadinessandwillingnessofthepartiesall-throughi.e., from the date^{of agreementtill finalizationof the suit proceedings'}

¶106

The evidence^{on record shows that there is no consensus} arrived by the^{partieswith regardto finalpricefor the contract of} sale. The plaintiff did^{not comp$with the counter-offer of the}

¶107

defendart bv entering ir)to an agreem(lnt of sale by pal,ing half of the costs tentatively fi-xed, as requjred under the terms and conditions of allotment. Further, thr:re is nothing on record to show that tl-re plaintilf \r,as capable of providing such amount with interest, as contained under the terms of allotment for the payment o[ balance land. The evidence and documents relied upon by both the parties clearly de.:nonstrate that the plaintiff was not in a position to meet the sale price for the balar-rce lald rvith intercsL. Fl'cn fresh proposurrs were also made to the plaintiff rvith enhanced marl<et price (al Rs.6,00O/- per acre, but the plaintiff did not accept rhe same. There is no material on record to shoq, that tl'rt: plaintill had suilicierrt money to meet the price of the balance land. Absolutely, no evidence was placed on record to show that the plaintill had alrvays been reacly and willing to perform his part o[ contract of sale., if aly exists betrveen the parties. There is no evidence to show that the plaintiff had money u,ith him so as to tneet the sale prir:e ol the balance land. The original ptaintiff througl'r Ramdass had been corresponding with the defendant emd he is the best person to speak about the readiness ein d u,illingness on the part o[ the plaintiff in complying with its contractual obligation. However, this witness has not been enterecl into tl-re $'itness trox. A.K. Sagar was examined as P.W.2, a-nd he deposecl irr his evidenr:e that he is not much aware

¶108

¶109

¶110

of the things which were done in between Ramdass and the defendant. When the plaintift himself has not entcred into witness box, his GPA holder cannot speak about the things which are specially known to the principal. The above aspects are^not considered by the Court below. Therefore, the plaintifl is^not entitled for any specific performance

¶111

Issue No.3:

¶112

The evidence on record shows that originally,^{the suit was} filcd by M/s. Sai Automatic^{Bricks and Clay Structurals Limited} u,hich is a company incorporated^{with limited liability and it is the} allottee of the land for^{establishment of factory.The Managing} Director of the said company^was Ramdas.^{Subsequently,the} name of the said company^{was changedto M/s.Laxmi Bricks and} CIay Structurals Limited^{and Ramdas was the ManagingDirector'} Under Ex.A 8, it appears that^{the plaintiff,A.K.Sagar,is running} the business. This^{deed showsthat there was a partnership in} between M/s.^{Sai Automatic Bricksand Clay StructuralsLimited,} which was changed to M/s,Laxmi^{Bricks and Clay Structura-ls} Limited, and A.K.Sagar.^{The recitals of the deed show that} partnership was entered to^take up^{the business of M/s.Laxmi} Bricks and CIay Structurals Limited^{on account of its inabilityto} run the business for the reason^{of lack of funds' Said A.K Sagar}

¶113

¶114

undertool{ to provrdc linancial assistarce to the original plaintift, and to do such assistance, thc ltarrnership firm was created. This partnership firm rvas dissolved in the year 1992.

¶115

The original plaintilf rvas subsl.iruted with A.K.Sagar by virtue of order passe<l ir-r LA-No.630 ot 1992. The said application was filed by A.K.Sagar under Order. VI Rule 17 of CpC for amendment of cause title by deleting I{/s.Laxmi Bricks and CIay Structurals I.imiled and substi[ut.ion ,tf his name_ This petition u'as filed on the strength of a GF,A executed by Ramdass, Managing Director of M/s. La-xmi Bricks and CIay Structura_ls Limited. It is unfortunate thzlt the said petition was allowed accepting the claim of thc petitioner thercin for substitution by deleting the name of the original plairrtiff_ It is to be noted that GPA creates on1,v an agencv and the holder of GpA is the agent of principal. In the present case, the principal himself was sought to be substituted with the agent. Such a procedure is unknown to law. At the most, the agent can represent the principal, who is already on record. This basic requirement was not considered by the Court below.

¶116

Mr.A.K.Sagar, thc present plaiotiff, sought to enforce the specific performance suit by lvay of appeal basing on the clairn of partnership deed and ^, glissoiutic,n of partnership deed.

¶117

¶118

ii j

¶119

lncidentally, hc happens to be the Managing Director of M/s. Lite Creat Construction Private Limited, which has purchased the subject factory in the open auction conducted by State Finance Corporation. Said A.K.Sagar can continue the suit proceedings being the representative of the original plaintiff and he can also continue, if there is a valid assignment of interest held by the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit proceedings. Such assignment must be permissible under contract entered between the original piaintiff ar-rd the defendant. The condition in the agreement, which is entered between the parties in respect of land admeasuring Ac.25-OO guntas, clearly prohibits any assignment and sub let. When there is a prohibition of assignment in the contract between the originai plaintiff and the defendant, the plarntiff cannot ignore such a written contract and create a new assignment by whatsoever mearls. This assignment is prohibited and it is not a valid one. Therefore, A.K.Sagar is not competent to prosecute the present litigation on account of prohibition of assigrrment in the contract. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no valid assignment of contract in between^the original plaintiff and A,K.Sagar. Accordingly, this point is answered.

¶120

In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31. 12.1992 in O.S.No.47 of 1982 on

¶121

¶122

the frle oI Subordinatc Jucige, Sana;3arcdd1.. Consequently, the suit in O.S.No.47 of 1982 is drsrnisscd. No costs. Miscellaneous

¶123

petitions pending, if any, shall stancl .losed

¶124

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Subordinate Judge, at Sangareddy. fivith records, if any)

¶129

Two CCs to THE ADVOCATE GENERAL High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶130

One CC to SRI V. VENKATA RAIVANA, ,qdvocate IOPUC]

¶131

One CC to SRI V. HANUMANTH RAO,^p.dvocare [OPUC]

¶132

Two CD Copies

kam^*</sup>

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410912023

JUDGMENT+DECREE

,4; E o
!.i ^i
I --'
1.)'
2s stI 191
.t
,i

¶138

AS.No.987 of 1993

¶139

THE APPEAL !S ALLOWED

¶140

.v,

¶141

13216 |

¶142

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶143

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER rWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶144

PRESENT

¶145

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN

¶146

APPEAL SUIT No: 987 of 1993

¶147

Between:

¶148

Andhra Pradesh lndustrial lnfrastructure co., Ltd.,^Rep. by^{its M.D.}

¶149

,..AppellanUDefendants

¶150

AND

¶151

1 A.K.Sagar (died), Operation, APSE Board Khammam

¶152

2 smt. A.Devagiri,

¶153

RRs. 2 to 5 are brought on record as Lrs. of deceased¹¹ vide^{court order} dt.16-7-96 in CMP.7553 of 96

¶154

SMT. P.Aruna Sagar,

¶155

RRs. 2 to 5 are brought on record as Lrs. of deceased^{11 vide court order} dt.16-7-96 in CMP.7553 of 96.

¶156

Miss. A.SriLakshmi,

¶157

RRs. 2 to 5 are brought on record as Lrs. of deceased^{11 vide court order} dt.16-7-96 in CMP.7553 of 96.

¶158

Smt. P.Sridevi Satish,

¶159

RRs. 2 to 5 are brought on record as^Lrs. of^{deceased11 vide court order} dt.16-7-96 in CMP.7553 of 96.

¶160

Ghansham Shewak Ramani , S/o. Jammadas,

¶161

R.No.6 CMP .262 is impleaded of^-2001. as^{party RespondentVide} ...Respondents/Plaintiffs^{court orderof 2-8-2001in}

¶162

Appeal filed under Section^g6 of the Codr: of Civil^procedure aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 31-12-1992 passe,l in O.S.No.47 of 19g2 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, at Sangarecldy.

¶163

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of rHE r.DVocATE GENERAL, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI V. VENKATARAIT/ANA for the Respondent No.3 and SRt V. HANUMANIH RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.6 and None Appeared for the Respondents No.2,4 & 5.

¶164

This Court doth Order and Decree as, follows:

¶165

That the appeal be and hereby is a olved setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31-12-1992 in OS.No.47 of 1992 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Sangareddy;

¶166

That the suit in O.S.No.4/ of 1982 be anrl hereby is dismissed; and

¶167

That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶168

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT RE STRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION FICER

The Subordinate Judge, at Sangareddy

¶173

Two CD Copies

kam S )r-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 410912023

DECREE

AS.No.987 of 1993

THE APPEAL !S ALLOWED

Andhra pradesh Industrial Infrastucture co., Ltd., v. a.K.Sagar (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andhra pradesh Industrial Infrastucture co., Ltd., v. a.K.Sagar (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bung and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bung Vs The State of Telangana

Kothuri Gundaiah, Adilabad Vs Kothuri Vijaya Kumar and 11 Others

V. Shankaramma, Vs B. Ramulu

Varsha Upadyaya and 4 Ors. Vs Mr.Prabhulal Gujjar and 5 Ors.

Mohd. Yousufuddin , Y.R. Babu Vs P.v.K.Shashthry and 2 Others