RUPAKULA SARADAMBA Vs. DATLA PUNNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was the defendant and the respondent herein was the plaintiff, who had instituted O.S.No. 140 of 1990 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali for specific performance of the contract of sale. On evidence, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendant-appellant herein carried the matter in appeal by filling A.S.No. 296 of 1997 before the III Additional District Judge, Guntur. The appeal filed by the defendant-appellant herein was dismissed. Hence the Second Appeal.

(2.) It is clear from the judgments of both the Courts below that the defendant appellant herein was the absolute owner of the land. He agreed to sell the land to the plaintiff when Section 4-A notification was issued by the Government for acquisition of the land. The main covenant in the agreement was that if the Government does not acquire the land, the defendant appellant herein would execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and if the Government acquires the land, then the defendant-appellant herein would return the amount, which was taken by her by way of advance.

(3.) It further appears from the record that when Section 4-A notification was issued and the defendant-appellant challenged it by filing W.P.No. 2915 of 1980. The said writ petition was allowed on 3-7-1981 by setting aside Section 4-A notification.