1974 (7) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecision in this revision petition brought under article 227 of the Constitution. Let me at the outset note the material facts. The suit for specific performance is O.S. No. 13 of 1962, in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Respondent No. 2 in the revision petition executed the agreement of sale on October 9, 1962, in favour of the petitioner (plaintiff) agreeing to sell a house in Secunderabad for Rs. 60,000. A sum of Rs. 20,000 was paid on that day itself. However, the second respondent sold the property to respondents Nos. 3 to 8 on which the suit was filed by the petitioner. The trial court awarded only damages and declined to grant specific performance. C.C.C.A. No. 71 of 1964 filed by the plaintiff was allowed by this court and specif....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... I may here mention that while decreeing the suit for specific performance, this court in C.C.C.A. No. 71 of 1964, directed that the second respondent shall, at the expense of the appellant-plaintiff, execute and procure registration of a proper and sufficient sale deed of the house. As I have pointed out, the needed sum for execution and registration of the sale deed had already been deposited by the petitioner. This court further directed that on the execution and registration of the sale deed, the second respondent shall be at liberty to withdraw the balance of the sale price of Rs. 40,000 deposited by the petitioner in the lower court without furnishing security. Costs were awarded to the petitioner. It is significant to note that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unt, he cannot get that relief. This court has directed in C.C.C.A. No. 71 of 1964 that he should deposit the amount into court. Indeed, the petitioner did not wait until the passing of this decree to make the deposit. He did it even when he instituted the suit. As per the decree, the sale deed has been executed and is awaiting registration. So any amount of exertion or any number of petitions cannot get back the amount to the petitioner. It is, therefore, not possible to say that the amount " belongs " to the petitioner. Further, the amount had been deposited and by virtue of the decree, passed by this court in appeal, the amount has become earmarked towards the payment of the balance of consideration to the second respondent. Once it i....