K VENKAT REDDY Vs. BHANWARILAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Counsel on record.

(2.) THE learned Counsel representing the appellants - defendants 19 to 21 had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the trial Court and also the specific grounds raised in the Grounds of Appeal and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the trial Court being unsustainable, the said findings are to be disturbed and the appeal to be allowed. THE learned Counsel also would maintain that the trial Court totally erred in decreeing the suit for specific performance on the strength of the alleged agreement of sale - Ex.A1, dated 20.6.1977. THE Counsel also would maintain that in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, the trial Court ought not to have recorded a finding that the property had fallen to the share of D1 in the partition effected between D1 and the deceased D2. THE learned Counsel also pointed out to several of the circumstances which would clearly go to show that this property in fact had fallen to the share of the deceased- 2nd defendant. THE Counsel would further maintain that the present appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased-D2. THE Counsel also would further point out that the agreement of sale said to have been entered by the 1st defendant is not binding on the 2nd defendant at all. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned Counsel also pointed out to Ex.B3 to Ex.B8 and further pointed out to the evidence of DW1, the son of D2, and also DW2, DW3 and DW4 as well. THE learned Counsel also further pointed out to Ex.B1, Ex.B2 and Ex.B9 to Ex.B12. While further making submissions, the Counsel specifically pointed out that even prior to Ex.A1, D2 mortgaged the property in favour of D3, and D2 had let out the property to tenants and had been collecting the rents. THE Counsel also pointed out that even after the death of D2; the legal heirs of D2 are in possession of the property even to this day. Further the Counsel had pointed out that yet another important aspect is that while decreeing the suit, a direction had been given to deposit the balance of sale consideration on or before 3.8.1989 and even as on to this day, no such deposit has been made, this also would clearly go to show that the 1st respondent - plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands and the claim is not a bona fide one. THE learned Counsel had taken this Court through the oral and documentary evidence in elaboration and ultimately would conclude that inasmuch as except the evidence of PW2, the brother of PW1, since no other acceptable evidence had been placed before the Court to prove Ex.A1, even on this ground the appellants are bound to succeed. THE learned Counsel ultimately would conclude that for the said reasons, the appeal to be allowed.

(3.) THE 1st respondent herein as plaintiff filed the suit OS No.6/78 on the file of the II-Additional Subordinate Judge, Warangal, pleading as hereunder: