SATTARAM MANEMMA Vs. MADDIGATLA BALAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is preferred by the defendant in O.S. No.25 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkumool, which is a suit filed by the respondents for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 23.1.1989 executed by the appellant in their favour in respect of the plaint schedule property and for a consequential injunction.

(2.) The case of the respondents is that appellant entered into an agreement to sell the plaint schedule property for Rs.29,021.25ps at Rs.5,450/- per acre and received Rs.24,000/- as advance and having agreed to receive the balance amount due on or before 23.11.1989 put them in possession of the plaint schedule property. Though they offered to pay the amount due to the appellant she was postponing to receive the same and so they got issued a registered notice to her, and she having received the same did not send a reply. The case of the appellant is that the agreement relied on by the respondents is forged and that she, in fact, is not the owner of the plaint schedule property and that her mother who purchased the said property in her name is in actual possession thereof and since there are boundary disputes between her mother and Pentaiah, her mother's neighbour, respondents at the instigation of Pentaiah brought an agreement into existence and filed the suit.

(3.) Basing on the pleadings, three issues were settled for trial by the Trial Court. In support of their case, respondents examined four witnesses as P.Ws.l to 4 including the 1st respondent as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.l to A.11. In support of her case, appellant examined herself as D.W.I and four other witnesses as D.Ws.2 to 5 and marked Exs.B.l to B.4.