UDATHA MALLAIAH Vs. LINGALA PENTAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Second Appeals arise out of two suits between almost the same parties. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. Defendants in O.S. No. 65 of 2001, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan, are the appellants in S.A. No. 1492 of 2004. The sole plaintiff in O.S. No. 158 of 2002 of the same Court filed S.A. No. 1490 of 2004 against the sole defendant therein. During the pendency of O.S. No. 65 of 2001, the 3rd defendant was added as party. Further, the 1st defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 4 to 8. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in O.S. No. 65 of 2001.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit against defendant No. 1, and his son, defendant No. 2 for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 10-04-1997. He pleaded that defendants 1 and 2 are owners of two separate bits of land and that the agreement was executed by the 1st defendant, on behalf of himself and his son, for sale of the suit schedule property, admeasuring Ac. 2.11 guntas for a consideration of Rs. 65,974/-, and that on the date of agreement itself, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid, as advance. Receipt, Ex. A-1, is said to have been issued therefore. It was pleaded that the 1st defendant promised to get the signature of his son, the 2nd defendant, on the agreement and when there was no progress in that direction, the plaintiff gave the agreement of sale to the 3rd defendant for obtaining the signature of the 2nd defendant. it is stated that having promised to get the signature, the 3rd defendant did not return the agreement of sale, at all, and instead, purchased the property. A notice was issued on 03-03-2001, requiring the defendants 1 to 3 to execute the sale deed, after receiving the balance of consideration. Alleging that the defendants did not respond to the notice, the plaintiff filed the suit on 04-04-2001.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants 1 and 2. It was pleaded that they did not execute any agreement of sale at all in favour of the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that in respect of the same property, they entered into agreement of sale with the 3rd defendant and that thereafter executed a sale deed.