LINGA REDDY Vs. RAMACHANDRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's second appeal against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Gulbarga, in R.C.A.No.33/4 of 1967 reversing the decree passed by the principal Munsiff, Gulbarga, in Suit No.129/1 of 1963. The plaintiff is a Hindu minor represented by his father and natural guardian Mallanna. The suit is one for specific performance of the contract to sell executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the 12th of October 1962 and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the suit lands bearing S.Nos. 90 and 91. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit lands belonged to the defendant. The father and natural guardian of the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant to purchase the two suit lands for a consideration of Rs.8,000. The said agreement is produced in this case as Ex. P.1. The entire consideration according to the plaintiff, was paid on the date of the agreement and the defendant put the plaintiff in possession of the suit lands. As per the agreement, the defendant also secured the permission of the Assistant Commissioner to sell the lands to the plaintiff as required by S. 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. As the defendant refused to execute the sale deed and began to interfere with the plaintiff's possession of the suit lands, the plaintiff brought the present suit on the 17th of December 1963 for specific performance of the contract to sell and for permanent injunction.

(2.) The defendant admitted the execution of the contract to sell, Ex. P.1. He contended that in view of the oral agreement between the parties, the contract to sell was not intended to be acted upon for a period of two years. The defendant's case is that his brother-in-law one Tamma Reddy was clue to the Government in respect of certain excise arrears. On behalf of his brother-in-law, the defendant approached the plaintiff's father and natural guardian Mallanna for a loan. Mallanna, according to the defendant, agreed to give the loan provided he had adequate security. According to the defendant, the contract to sell was executed as security for the loan given bv Mallanna as the natural guardian of the minor plaintiff to Tamma Reddy. It is the defendant's case that Tamma Reddy was to repay the loan with interest within a period of two years. If Tamma Reddy committed any default, it was agreed between the parties that the defendant should execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Further, the case of the defendant is that as per this oral argeement, Tamma Reddy who had taken the loan repaid the same with interest. It was therefore contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to enforce the contract to sell which was agreed to be enforced only in the event of Tamma Reddy not repaying the loan to the plaintiff as orally agreed between the parties.

(3.) The learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the oral agreement pleaded by the defendant was proved He also held that there is no bar of S. 92 of the Evidence Act for proving such an oral agreement. The learned Munsiff also came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit lands on the date of suit. The learned Munsiff further recorded a finding that Tamma Reddy, the brother-in-law of the defendant had repaid the loan taken by him. In view of these findings, the learned Munsiff dismissed the plaintiff's suit