SURAPANENI NARASIMHA RAO Vs. UPPALAPATI SREERANGANNAYAKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in O.S, No.50 of 1980 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam, who filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 27-1-1980 said to have been executed by the first respondent in respect of Ac.6-70 cents in R.S. Nos.39/1, 39/2, 39/2B of Lokumudi Village of Kaikalur Taluq, within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule appended to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) is the appellant in this appeal. His case, in brief, is that he, who is the cultivating tenant of the suit land, having agreed to purchase the same from first respondent for Rs.3 6,000/- entered into an agreement of sale dated 27-1-1980, with the first respondent and paid Rs.20,000/- to the first respondent on that day and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 16,000/- on or before 26-2-1980, and in case of delay that amount has to be paid with interest at 12% per annum. Since first respondent committed default in payment of land revenue, revenue authorities attached the paddy heap in R.S.No.39/2 and the paddy heap in the land of Nayudamma, and so he paid the arrears of land revenue and got the attachment raised. After having come to know that first respondent is intending to alienate the suit land he got issued a telegraphic notice to Respondents 1 and 2, and followed it by a registered notice for which first respondent sent a reply with false allegations and alienated the suit land to Respondents 2 and 3.

(2.) The case, in brief, of the first respondent (first defendant) is that the agreement dated 27-1-1980, relied on by the appellant is not true and is brought into existence by the appellant with the help of Uppalapati Raghava Rao, a retired Tahsildar, with a view to defraud her. The suit land, along with Ac.8-08 cents belonging to Kolli Nayudamma, was in the management of the aforesaid Uppalapati Raghava Rao, and his wife Atchamma, who are her family friends. After coming to know that the said Raghava Rao and his wife were not honest and were intending to purchase the entire extent of Ac. 14-88 cents at a low price, her husband agreed to sell the land of Ac. 14-88 cents to the second respondent under agreements of sale dated 5-4-1980 and put him in possession thereof on the same day and thereafter she and Nayudamma extracted sale deeds in favour of the 2nd respondent and his nominees and got them registered. With a view to get over those sale deeds, Uppalapati Raghava Rao must have set up the appellant by bringing into existence the agreement of sale dated 27-1-1980 relied on by the appellant, and got issued a notice with false allegations, for which a reply was got issued. Appellant in fact has no means to purchase the suit land. The attachment of the paddy heap for the alleged arrears of land revenue in respect of the said land is a make believe affair, and is not true and so the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The case of Respondents 2 and 3 (Defendants 2 and 3) is that when the suit land, and Ac.8-08 cents belonging to Kolli Nayudamma were offered for sale by the first respondent and Kolli Nayudamma second respondent having agreed to purchase the same for a consideration of Rs.8,000/- per acre, under agreements of sale, from them on 5-4-1980 and thereafter obtained registered sale deeds from the first respondent and Kolli Nayudamma in their names and in the names of their nominees. Appellant who is the son-in-law of the sister- in-law (wife's sister) of Uppalapati Raghava Rao, a retired Tahsildar, a family friend of the first respondent and Kolli Nayudamma, had set up the appellant, since he failed in his attempt to purchase the land under his management from the first respondent and Nayudamma at the price of his choice, Raghava Rao got the suit filed in the name of the appellant by fabricating an agreement of sale in favour of the appellant. Appellant in fact was never in possession of the suit land or the other land purchased by them and others from the first respondent and Nayudamma. Proceedings relating to attachment of paddy heaps in R.S.No.39/2 and the lands of Nayudamma etc., must have been created with the help of the village karanam, Chavalipadu group of villages, who is a close friend of Raghava Rao, in connivance with the other officers in the village, to strengthen the case of the appellant.