POTHANA SESHAGIRI RAO Vs. MADDIPATI SATYAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the owner of Acs.15.06 cents of land in R.S.No.310/2 of West Godavari District. The respondent filed O.S.No.293 of 1990 in the Court of I Additional District Munsiff, Kovvur, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of Acs.5.06 cents of land (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit schedule property') out of the said Acs.15.06 cents of land. It was pleaded that the appellant, who is the cousin of the husband of the respondent, offered to sell the land for a sum of Rs. 45,000.00 and the respondent agreed to purchase the property; and that an agreement of sale was entered into in the year 1978. Advance of Rs. 20,000.00 and subsequently, the sums of Rs. 10,000.00 and Rs. 14,000.00 were said to have been paid. She pleaded that the appellant executed two sale deeds dated 23.12.1981 covering an area of Acs.5.00 and another sale deed on 24.12.1981 covering another extent of Acs.5.00, but has refused to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. It was her case that on the date of agreement itself, the possession of the entire extent of Acs.15.06 cents of land was delivered and she continued to be in possession thereof.

(2.) According to the respondent, the appellant demanded higher amount stating that there is escalation of prices and a sum of Rs. 10,000.00, in addition to what was paid already was kept with one of the close relations of the appellant so that it can be paid, once the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property is executed. She pleaded that the appellant did not execute the deed but tried to interfere with her possession over the suit schedule property.

(3.) The appellant filed a written statement disputing the existence of any agreement with the respondent. He stated that in the year 1981 when he was in need of money, the husband of the respondent came forward to purchase the land and since consideration was paid for an extent of Acs.10.00 sale deeds for that extent were executed. He stated that he never parted with the possession of the suit schedule property and that he is in enjoyment thereof.