BIRRA DHARMA RAO Vs. SETHIPATHI PANDURANGA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that arises in this appeal is about the validity of a sale in pursuance of an earlier contract over an earlier sale executed in pursuance of a latter contact, where the latter sale was with the knowledge of the earlier contract of sale. It is necessary to state a few facts to appreciate the points arising in this appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff, who filed in his suit for a declaration of his title to the suit property to an extent of Ac. 4-62 cents of land in Gudavalli village and for injunction in the alternative, has come up with this appeal. His case in brief, as per the plaint, is as follows:- He purchased the suit schedule land from the second defendant on 11-6-1968 as per an earlier contract of sale dated 21-10-65. He was put in possession of the same. This land was purchased originally by a firm, which carried on p nership business for the manufacture or bricks in the suit land. The said firm consisted of the plaintiff, Koneru Raghavendra Rao and D. Koteswara Rao.

(3.) The first defendant, who is a resident of Hyderabad, was previously cited as an arbitrator in the disputes between the plaintiff and his partners in the joint brick business. But the plaintiff was not agreeable to have him as the Arbitrator. But the first defendant in connivance with the other two partners began to take initiative, as an arbitrator without any authority. But he was prevented from doing so by the plaintiff. Subsequently, the matter was referred to two named arbitrators by the three partners. Even then they could not decide their disputes and the matter ended in a suit O.S. 87 of 1966 on the file of Sub-Court, Vijayawada. The first defendant, who bore a grudge on that account, in collusion with the other partner was trying to harass the plaintiff by getting into existence sham documents. He issued a false notice to the plaintiff, for which a proper reply was sent. Plaintiff also became the absolute owner of the bricks by purchase in court auction pending the suit for dissolution in spite of it the first defendant began to gather persons and threaten to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Plaintiff was, therefore, obliged to file a suit for a permanent injunction in the court of District Munsif, Vijayawada and obtained a temporary injunction against him.