GULLAPALLI SOOREEDAMMA Vs. BANDARU TRINADHUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff who succeeded in the trial Court and who lost in the lower appellate Court is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff is sister of the defendants 1 to 3/respondents 1 to 3. She filed the suit in the trial Court for specific performance of Ex.A.1 agreement for sale dated 26.08.1987 said to have been executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in her favour for the plaint schedule items of land after receiving entire consideration thereunder and delivered possession of the lands thereunder. After exchange of notices as per Exs.A.2 and A.3, the plaintiff filed the suit. The defendants denied Ex.A.1 agreement for sale and also pleaded that Ex.A.1 might have been fabricated by the plaintiff. In effect, they denied the entire transaction covered by Ex.A.1.

(2.) THIS second appeal was admitted on 08.09.2000 in view of substantial questions of law framed in the grounds of appeal, which are as follows:

(3.) AFTER receipt of notices in this second appeal, the defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 did not choose to appear before this Court through any counsel or by themselves. The second appeal was dismissed against the 3rd defendant/3rd respondent for default, perhaps for non-payment of bata to him. Absence of the 3rd defendant/3rd respondent before this Court in this second appeal and dismissal of the second appeal as against the 3rd respondent has no effect on this second appeal because as per finding of the lower appellate Court, the 3rd appellant has no title to the schedule property as the suit property was allotted to the share of the 1st defendant entirely in the family partition. Therefore, presence or absence of the 3rd respondent in this appeal matters little.