GETHINI ETHIRAJALU NAIDU Vs. GETHINI MUNI KANNIAYA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the appeals the plaintiff is the appellant. S.A.No.98 of 2008 is directed against the concurrent finding of the Courts below dismissing the suit for specific performance or in alternate to refund the sale consideration of Rs. 50,000.00 and S.A.No.99 of 2008 is directed against the concurrent finding of the Courts below dismissing the suit for injunction and costs.

(2.) The facts in nutshell, is that, the plaintiff entered into a sale agreement in respect of the suit property on 10.01.1981 with the first defendant. The sale consideration was fixed as Rs. 44,000.00 and advance of Rs. 17,000.00 was paid to the first defendant. On 29.11.1986, a fresh sale agreement was entered between the parties fixing the sale consideration at Rs. 50,000.00. According to the plaint, the entire sale consideration of Rs. 50,000.00 was paid to the first defendant. The possession of the property was given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was ready and willing to have the sale deed executed. Finally he approached the first defendant on 14.03.1992 and demanded execution of sale deed. The first defendant evaded, hence notice dated 16.3.1992 was issued to the first defendant. He inturn replied on 26.03.1992, denying the execution of sale agreement with the plaintiff and also Intimated the sale of the property to the second defendant on 30.11991 itself.

(3.) The first defendant filed written statement in which he contended that, there was no sale agreement executed by him on 29.11.1986. The earlier agreement dated 10.01.1981 was duly cancelled and advance money was returned. The property jointly owned by him, his mother and sister. They all joined together and sold the property to the second defendant. Due to enmity, this suit is filed based on a fabricated sale agreement.