LAWS(APH)-2024-3-56

PALLMKUPPAM SRIIVASULU Vs. SIDDILUGARI JANITHA

Decided On March 20, 2024
Pallmkuppam Sriivasulu Appellant
V/S
Siddilugari Janitha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein filed O.S.No.50 of 2010 before the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, for specific performance of an agreement of sale dtd. 3/8/2006. It was the contention of the respondent that there was an agreement, between the respondent and the appellant, for purchase of the suit schedule property, belonging to the appellant, for a consideration of Rs.2,90,000.00 and the terms and conditions of the said sale were reduced to writing and signed by the parties on 3/8/2006. The respondent also contended that an advance amount of Rs.2,87,000.00 was already paid and only a nominal amount of Rs.3,000.00 remained to be paid. As the appellant was not accepting the remaining money, the respondent is said have got a legal notice, dtd. 25/11/2009, issued to the appellant for calling upon the appellant to come forward to receive the remaining sale consideration of Rs.3000.00 and to execute necessary documents of alienation. Reply to this legal notice was given by the appellant, by another legal notice dtd. 27/12/2009, raising various defences, which are disputed by the respondent.

(2.) The respondent then filed O.S.No.50 of 2010 before the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi for specific performance of the said agreement.

(3.) The appellant took the defence that the he had not agreed for selling the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. It was the further case of the appellant that he had obtained a loan of about Rs.3,20,000.00 from the respondent in the year 2005 for which, he had given various documents including the blank signed stamps papers and a sale letter relating to the suit schedule property. The appellant contended that he had repaid the aforesaid sum of Rs.3,20,000.00 after which, the respondent had returned the sale letter but did not return some of the blank signed stamp papers etc., on account of the differences between the respondent and the appellant in relation to the interest payable on the loan amount. The appellant also took the stand that one Sri M. Babu Reddy had approached the appellant showing an agreement of sale between the respondent and Sri M. Babu Reddy dtd. 16/6/2007 for sale of the suit schedule property and had enquired whether the property been sold to the respondent. The appellant is said to have set out the facts relating to the sale letter and had also shown the sale letter to Sri M. Babu Reddy.