(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff in OS No. 57 of 1983 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram (for short, 'the trial Court'), preferred this appeal against the impugned decree and judgment dated 28.3.1990, wherein the suit filed for specific performance was dismissed. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants before the trial Court and they will hereinafter be referred as the plaintiff and the defendants for convenience. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale alleging that the 1st defendant is the owner of the schedule property, agreed to sell the same for a consideration of Rs. 1,02,000/- and executed an agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983 in favour of the plaintiff on receiving advance of Rs. 10,000/-. It is further agreed under the agreement of sale that the 1st defendant has to execute one or more sale deeds either in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of his nominee on receipt of balance of consideration before Sub-Registrar and possession of the property be delivered on the date of registration of sale deed. On the same day, the 1st defendant handed over letter dated 22.1.1983 executed by the 9th defendant, who is the tenant under the 1st defendant, relinquishing his right of tenancy in the schedule property receiving Rs. 3,000/- from the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant harvested the crop.
(2.) Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to 9 filed written statement denying the material allegations of the plaint inter alia contending that husband of the 3rd defendant Pinnamraju Purushotham Varma @ Baburao and the plaintiff have approached the 1st defendant to purchase the plaint schedule property as the plaintiff represented that the 1st defendant was his relative. The plaintiff wanted to purchase item No. 2 of the plaint schedule and the husband of the 3rd defendant intended to purchase item No. 1 of the schedule property. The bargain was settled and the 1st defendant agreed to sell item No. 1 to the husband of the 3rd defendant for Rs. 8,721/- and item No. 2 to the plaintiff for Rs. 14,790/- and received advance of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 9,000/- from Pinnamraju Purushotham Varma @ Baburao and the plaintiff respectively. The 1st defendant executed agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983 in favour of the plaintiff and Pinnamraju Purushotham Varma @ Baburao, husband of the 3rd defendant. It is further agreed that the balance of sale consideration shall be paid within 5 months from the date of agreement to sell and obtain registered sale deed by the plaintiff and Pinnamraju Purushotham Varma @ Baburao in their names or in the name of their nominees. Thus, the plaintiff purchased only item No. 2 of the schedule property under agreement to sell and the alleged agreement to sell pleaded by the plaintiff dated 24.1.1983 is false and baseless. The 2nd defendant paid Rs. 28,305/- to the 1st defendant through Pinnamraju Purushotham Varma @ Baburao and took possession of Ac.0.55 cents out of item No. 1 of the plaint schedule property from the 9th defendant who was the tenant under the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant executed registered sale deed dated 30.5.1983 in favour of the 2nd defendant. Pinnamraju Purushotham Varma @ Baburao paid Rs. 14,205/- besides advance of Rs. 9,000/- on behalf of his wife, the 3rd defendant, and obtained possession of Ac.0.45 1/2 cents out of item No. 1 of the schedule property from the 9th defendant, who was the tenant under the 1st defendant, on the basis of registered sale deed dated 30.5.1983 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant.
(3.) Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: