P PANDIT RAO Vs. K DAMODAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS in O.S.No.1138 of 1991 on the file of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, preferred this appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17 -09 -2001 passed by the trial Court.

(2.) THE 1st respondent is the husband of the 2nd respondent. They filed the suit against the appellants for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 20 -03 -1989, marked as Ex.A -1. Respondents pleaded that in the month of June, 1988, the appellants offered to sell the suit schedule property, bearing Municipal Nos.1 -2 -65, 1 -2 -65/1 and 1 -2 -65/2, admeasuring about 300 sq. yards, situated at Domalguda, Hyderabad, for a consideration of Rs.2 lakhs. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/ - is said to have been paid on the date of agreement, and a sum of Rs.96,000/ - on several dates, prior to that. It was alleged that the agreement was entered through their Special Power of Attorney.

(3.) THE 1st appellant is the father, and appellants 2 to 7 are his children. All of them have filed a common written -statement. At a later point of time, the written statement was amended, by including certain paragraphs. The gist of the defence is that they never agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the respondents, nor they received a sum of Rs.96,000/ -, as pleaded. It was urged that the 6th appellant, by name P. Satyam, was a minor, and that Ex.A -1 is invalid in law. They pleaded that the 1st appellant used to have money transactions with one Sri K. Laxmaiah, who is the brother -in -law of the 1st respondent, and a sum of Rs.1 lakh was borrowed from the said Laxmaiah, with a promise to repay the same after two years, and taking advantage of the need of the 1st appellant, Laxmaiah, got Ex.A -1 executed, with an object to secure repayment of Rs.1 lakh, after 2 years, with interest at 48% per annum. Rs.96,000/ -, mentioned in Ex.A -1, is stated to be the interest portion. Appellants pleaded that the suit agreement was nominal and executed for the purpose of repayment of the amount. They denied any privity of contract with the respondents. It was also alleged that the respondents neither issued any notice, nor requested for execution of sale deed, because they were very much aware of the nominal nature of the document.