VENKATA RAMAIAH Vs. MADAM SAROJANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Second Appeals are between the same parties. Hence they are disposed of through a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in Second Appeal No. 323 of 1999.

(2.) The appellant filed O.S. No. 23 of 1985 in the Court of District Munsif, at Pargi, against the respondents for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, in respect of 26 guntas of land and for perpetual injunction, in relation thereto. He pleaded that he purchased the entire land in Sy. No. 18/ of Pargi Village with specific boundaries owned by the mother of respondents 1 to 3, by name, Babamma, through a registered sale deed dated 14-07-1978 (Ex.A-14), for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/ -. He stated that himself and his vendor were under the assumption that the land covered by that sale deed is only one acre and the same was mentioned in the sale deed. According to him, the measurement of the land, after registration of the document has revealed that the extent is Ac. 1.26 guntas, and on a demand made by Babamma, he paid a sum of Rs. 3,900/ -, representing the cost of 26 guntas, on 06-08-1978, and on the same day, agreement of sale, Ex.A-1, was executed in respect thereof. The possession of the entire Ac. 1.26 guntas of land was said to have been delivered on the date of registration of sale deed (Ex.A-14), i.e., 14-07-1978 itself. He stated that a poultry shed was constructed on part of the land, and the cultivation is being done in the rest of it. He further stated that, in spite of demands, respondents 1 to 3 did not execute the sale deed, in respect of 26 guntas of land. The basis for impleading the 4th respondent was that, an extent of 22 guntas of land was purchased by her, under two separate sale deeds.

(3.) The 4th respondent, on the other hand, filed O.S. No. 24 of 1983 in the same Court, for the relief of perpetual injunction against the appellant and his father, as regards the same property. She pleaded that an extent of 22 guntas of land was purchased by her from Babamma, through sale deeds dated 25-11-1978 and 04-01-1979, marked as Exs.B-2 and B-3, respectively. It was urged that, by mistake, the northern boundary of the land, purchased under those documents, was shown as the land of Razack, and in fact, it is the land of one acre, purchased by the appellant, under Ex.A-1. She stated the manner in which she has been enjoying the property, and complained that the appellant is trying to interfere with her possession.