P.PUSHPAMALA REDDY Vs. JANGA RAGHAVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in O.S.No.39 of 2008 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Warangal, filed I.A.No.255 of 2013 therein under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. By order dated 17.07.2013, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Aggrieved, the first defendant is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) This Court issued notice to the respondent/ plaintiff on 21.02.2014. The notice was however returned with the endorsement not claimed. Significantly, the address to which the notice was sent was the same address furnished by the respondent/plaintiff in his plaint. Failure of the respondent/plaintiff to claim the notice sent through registered post to his last known address would therefore qualify as deemed service (D. VINOD SHIVAPPA V/s. NANDA BELLIAPPA).

(3.) The suit, O.S.No.39 of 2008, was filed against the petitioner/ first defendant and her former General Power of Attorney holder (GPA holder) for specific performance of a sale agreement. The case of the respondent/plaintiff was that the GPA holder had entered into an agreement of sale with him on 22.02.2008. While so, by way of the subject I.A., the petitioner/first defendant contended that there was a clear prohibition in the deed of power of attorney executed by her, which barred the GPA holder from entering into any kind of agreement or alienation by way of sale, mortgage, exchange, donation or transfer of any other kind in respect of the suit property. She therefore asserted that there was no cause of action for the respondent/plaintiff to seek specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale as there was no privity of contract between herself and the respondent/plaintiff.