THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3484 OF 2009 Date: 13-08-2009 Between Kadiyala Chandra Rao …..Petitioner Vasamsetti Dhanalaxmi …..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3484 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is by the decree holder in a suit for specific performance under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of order dated 30-03-2009 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram in E.A No. 44 of 2008 in E.P No. 82 of 2000 in O.S No. 67 of 992. At time of registration of the suit for specific performance, the petitioner herein deposited the balance of sale consideration in the suit on 17-07-1992. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.P No.64 of 1995 for execution of the decree and obtained registered sale deed through Court on 19-11-1996 and delivery of the property through Court on 29-11-2004 by filing E.P No. 82 of 2000. The balance of sale consideration deposited by the petitioner was invested in FDR which accrued interest of Rs.1,06,968.43 paise from 17-07-1992 to 19-11-1996, the date on which he obtained the registered sale deed. The judgment debtor filed a cheque petition in E.A No. 44 of 2008. At that stage, the petitioner herein filed E.A No. 196 of 2008 claiming that he is entitled to interest from 17-07-1992 to 19-11-1996, the date of deposit to the date of registration of sale deed which comes to Rs.30,230/- and that he is also entitled to rents over the property from 19-11-1996 to the date of delivery of the property on 29-11-2004. The lower Court by the impugned order dismissed the cheque petition filed by the petitioner in E.A No. 196 of 2008 and allowed the cheque petition filed by the respondent in E.A No.44 of 2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under Section 55 (6) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, ‘the Act’) the decree holder is entitled to interest with a charge over the property sold from the date of payment of the purchase money till execution of the sale deed or the date of delivery of the property, whichever is earlier. To buttress the said submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of the apex Court in Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction Co., (P) Ltd.,[1]. Though the said judgment was cited before the lower Court, it was held that it is not absolute but is qualified with the words that unless the buyer improperly declined to accept the delivery of the property. Whether the decree holder declined to accept the delivery of the property and whether it is against the terms of the contract are the questions which can only be gone into after due enquiry, but not in a petition like the one filed for issuing a cheque and that too, after the judgment debtor made his application. Section 55 (6) (b) of the Act reads as under: “Section 55 (6)(b): The buyer is entitled— (a) ………… (b) unless he has improperly declined to accept delivery of the property, to a charge on the property, as against the seller and all persons claiming under him, to the extent of the seller’s interest in the property, for the amount of any purchase-money properly paid by the buyer in anticipation of the delivery and for interest on such amount; and, when he properly declines to accept the delivery, also for the earnest (if any) and for the costs (if any) awarded to him of a suit to compel specific performance of the contract or to obtain a decree for its rescission.” In view of the above provision, the decree holder is not entitled for any interest and the lower Court rightly dismissed the I.A filed by him holding that he is entitled to interest only up to the date of execution of the sale deed. The apex Court in the above stated case held that seller is liable to pay interest on purchase money in case of fraud on the part of the seller in spite of the stipulation in the agreement of sale for non-payment of interest in case the transaction fails. In view of the same, the discretion exercised by the lower Court in allowing the cheque petition filed by the respondent-judgment debtor does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 13-08-2009 ks [1] AIR 2000 SC 573