HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. NARAYANAPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the unsuccessful plaintiff in both the Courts is the appellant. The suit has been dismissed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court. Initially the suit for poisesiion and perpetual injunction was filed and later specific performance of agreement of sale, dated November 28, 1969, Ex. A-l was also sought for. It is his case that the 3rd defendant who is the owner of the property executed an agreement of sale to convey the property for a total consideration of Rs. 5,919-50 and he was put in possession. He being a teacher, he requested the 1st defendant, his father-in-law to look after the lands. But his father-in-law with a view to defraud him, entered into an agreement with the 2nd defendant under Ex. A-6 to alienate the same. For specific performance of that agreement Ex. A6, the 2nd defendant filed the suit O. S. of 1972 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Khammam and the suit has been decreed and possession was taken from the 1st defendant. After coming to know of these events he filed the present suit. The 1st defendant remained parte in the suit and the 3rd defendant filed a written statement contending that she has no title to the plaint schedule property. She was requested by the 1st, defendant and the plaintiff to execute a nominal agreement with a view to avoid a decree in 0. S. No. 2 of 1972. Therefore, to facilitate them without knowing the consequences she executed the agreement of sale. The 2nd defendant has come forward with a plea that the suit is a collusive one to avoid a decree in O. S. 2 of 1972 between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, the title-holder who executed an agreement of sale and allowed the decree in O. S. No. 2 of 1972, to become final. Toe trial Court found that no consideration has been passed under Ex. A1, and that theagreement Ex. A-l, which the appellant is seeking to be specifically enforced is a void agreement. On merits also he dismissed the suit. On appeal, the appellate Court without going into the merits concluded on consideration of the recitals in the agreement Ex. A-l, that it is a sale out and out. The mere recital that a regular sale deed will be executed at a later date will not take away the effect of the document being a sale deed. It being unregistered and unstamped, it can not be relied upon. With that view the learned Judge, dismissed the appeal. Thus the Second Appeal.

(2.) In this appeal, Sri Ramamohan Rao, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the decision relied on by the appellate Court reported in K. Santa Kumar vs. K. Suseela is not a proper authority on the point, but whereas the decision of the Madras High Court reported in Ramachandra vs. Ramayya is an authority on the point and the lower Court did not consider this point in proper perspective. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. Now as found by the trial Court that Ex. A-l, itself is a void document since no consideration has been passed and it is a nominal document executed at the request of the appellant and the 1st defendant to void a decree in O. S. No. 2 of 1972. If that be so the entire basis is knocked down to its bottom.

(3.) I have gone through the recitals of the agreement. The effect of the recitals in the agreement is that title has been conveyed with absolute rights of alienation etc. under Ex. Al, but it is only an unstamped and unregistred document.. Therefore, it cannot be received in evidenc and it cannot be relied upon as basis for the claim. The mere recital that a regalar sale deed will be executed at a later date does not take a way the character of the document as being a sale deed. This is the view of this Court reported in K. Santha Kumari vs. K. Suseela Devi. I respect fully follow the same. Accordingly, I hold that the view of the appeallate Court is perfectly legal and it does not warrant interference in the Second Appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal dismissed with costs. S.A. Dismissed.