KORADA SANYASAMMA Vs. MANDADI ADILAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 160 of 1999 in the Court of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), at Visakhapatnam, against the 2nd respondent for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 21-09-1997, in respect of 44 cents of land in Sy. No. 98/1 of Vemulavalasa Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Subsequently, she added the appellant herein as 2nd defendant. It was pleaded that the 2nd respondent executed an agreement of sale, promising to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-, i.e. @ Rs. 12,500/- per cent, and that she paid an advance of Rs. 1 lakh on the date of agreement. The 1st respondent stated that she is willing to perform her part of contract, and in spite of repeated requests, the 2nd respondent did not execute the sale deed. Reference was made to the notices, that were exchanged, as well as to the effort made by the 2nd respondent to give an impression that the agreement was only in respect of 17 cents.

(2.) The plaint was amended by incorporating a paragraph to the effect that the appellant herein started making construction on the suit schedule property, and that she has no right to make any construction upon it. The prayer in the suit was also amended by claiming it against the appellant also, in the context of delivery of possession. The 2nd respondent filed a written-statement. He did not dispute the fact that he executed an agreement of sale. However, according to him, the agreement was only in respect of 17 cents, and the extent was mentioned by mistake, as 44 cents. He further pleaded that the appellant herein was not the original owner of 44 cents of land, and she sold only an extent of 17 cents to him, through sale deed dated 10-03-1993, and in that view of the matter, he cannot transfer any extent more than 17 cents.

(3.) The appellant filed a separate written-statement. Her plea was almost in consonance with that of the 2nd respondent. It is stated that she executed a sale deed dated 10-03-1993 in favour of the 2nd respondent only to an extent of 17 cents, and she continues to be owner and possessor of balance of 27 cents. She has also pleaded that her four daughters, one of whom, is the wife of the 2nd respondent, are the joint owners of the property.