MALIREDDY BUTHIRAMANNA DORA Vs. DASARI VEERABHADRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.338 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada are the appellants. The suit was filed against the respondents-spouses for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 12.02.1993. It was pleaded tat the 2nd respondent is the owner of the property and herself and her husband agreed to sell the property for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- and on the date of execution of the agreement of sale, advance of Rs.5,000/- was paid. It was pleaded that inspite of repeated demands, the respondents did not execute the sale deed and ultimately, a telegraphic notice was issued on 07.02.1996 requiring them to execute the sale deed. The respondents are said to have pretended ignorance of the very document and that vexed with their conduct, the appellants filed the suit.

(2.) The respondents filed a written statement, opposing the suit. According to them, the agreement of sale was a forged one and that neither the agreement was executed nor the advance was received. Certain other grounds were also pleaded. Through its judgment, dated 18.09.2000, the trial Court decreed the suit. The respondents filed A.S.No.134 of 2000 in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada. The appeal was partly allowed on 11.07.2009 and the alternative relief of refund of the advance of Rs.5,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum was granted. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy, Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court and the lower appellate Court held that the agreement-Ex. A.1 is proved and that though the trial Court decreed the suit, as provided for in law, the lower appellate Court reversed the same on a totally untenable ground. He also submits that the non-cooperation on the part of the respondents can be culled out from the fact that they went to the extent of denying the very execution of the agreement of sale. Learned Counsel further submits that the so-called delay was not at all material and that it was occasioned on account of non-cooperation of the respondents.