KONERU SRINIVAS Vs. G.SARALA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners filed O.S. No. 739 of 2007 in the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, against the respondent, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 19.05.2004, and tripartite agreement, dated 11.04.2005. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners was that, the 1st petitioner entered into an agreement, dated 19.05.2004, with the respondent for purchase of two Flats, bearing Nos. 401 and 402 of NCL Homes, Krishna Apartments, Madhapur, Ranga Reddy District, for a consideration of Rs. 40 lakhs, and out of it, a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs was paid, on the date of agreement itself. It is stated that, on account of certain developments, the parties could not adhere to the commitments and an understanding was arrived at between the 1st petitioner and the respondent to the effect that the latter may sell one flat, and execute the sale deed in respect of the other. Accordingly, the respondent is said to have executed a sale deed, on 05.01.2005, in respect of Flat No. 402, in favour of third parties. Therefore, the 1st petitioner intended to transfer his rights in respect of the other flat in favour of the 2nd petitioner and with the participation of the sole respondent, a tripartite agreement, dated 11.04.2005, is said to have been entered into, stipulating various conditions. The petitioners submit that, though there is a recital in the agreement, dated 11.04.2005, to the effect that first of them, has handed over the original of the agreement, dated 19.05.2004, and the receipt, to the second of them, those documents were with the respondent, and she did not return them, in spite of repeated demands. Ultimately, the suit was filed for specific performance, as indicated above.

(2.) The trial of the suit commenced and in the course of evidence on behalf of the petitioners, they intended to bring on record the agreement, dated 19.05.2004. For that purpose, they got issued a notice under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'The Act'), to the respondent to produce the original of the agreement, dated 19.05.2004. Alleging that the request was not acceded to, they filed I.A. No. 68 of 2011, with a request to receive the Xerox copy of the said agreement, as secondary evidence. The application was opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 18.01.2012. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Heard Sri B. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Hari Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondent.