POTHANA SESHAGIRI RAO Vs. MADDIPATI SATYAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the owner of Acs.15.06 cents of land in R.S.No.310/2 of West Godavari District. THE respondent filed O.S.No.293 of 1990 in the Court of I Additional District Munsiff, Kovvur, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of Acs.5.06 cents of land (hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property) out of the said Acs.15.06 cents of land. It was pleaded that the appellant, who is the cousin of the husband of the respondent, offered to sell the land for a sum of Rs.45,000/- and the respondent agreed to purchase the property; and that an agreement of sale was entered into in the year 1978. Advance of Rs.20,000/- and subsequently, the sums of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.14,000/- were said to have been paid. She pleaded that the appellant executed two sale deeds dated 23.12.1981 covering an area of Acs.5.00 and another sale deed on 24.12.1981 covering another extent of Acs.5.00, but has refused to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. It was her case that on the date of agreement itself, the possession of the entire extent of Acs.15.06 cents of land was delivered and she continued to be in possession thereof.

(2.) ACCORDING to the respondent, the appellant demanded higher amount stating that there is escalation of prices and a sum of Rs.10,000/-, in addition to what was paid already was kept with one of the close relations of the appellant so that it can be paid, once the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property is executed. She pleaded that the appellant did not execute the deed but tried to interfere with her possession over the suit schedule property.

(3.) SRI K.Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the lower appellate Court has reversed the decree passed by the trial Court on the basis of certain assumptions and conjectures. He contends that the respondent was so uncertain that she was not clear as to whether there existed oral or written agreement. He submits that the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent stated that a written agreement was entered into, but it was not filed into the Court at all. He submits that a vital statement from P.W.1 to the effect that the respondent herein was not mentally sound and that she was not in a position to give instructions, as on the date of filing of the suit, was totally ignored by the lower appellate Court. Learned counsel submits that the suit filed by the respondent for the relief of permanent injunction by pleading agreement of sale was totally untenable and at the best the respondent could have filed a suit for specific performance and for any other ancillary reliefs. He contends that the so called refusal to execute the sale deed was in December, 1981, whereas the suit was filed in the year 1990. He raised several other contentions also.