B RAMENDER REDDY Vs. B V SATYANARAYANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of a suit and a counter suit filed by the parties. C C C A 181/82 is filed against the judgment and decree in 0 S No,1052/80. This suit is laid for possession against the defendents. It is averred in the plaint that the defendants who obtained a nominal agreement to sell dated 11-4-72 from the mother of the plaintiff, purporting to represent the plaintiff when he was a minor for purchasing the suit land belonging to the plaintiff of an extent of Acs. 4-01 guntas, comprised in survey No. 115 in Thokatta Village Secunderabad taluk, Hyderabad District, trespassed on the land in the second week of October, when the plaintiff refused to accept their claim to convey the title in the property. There are three defendants in the suit. The 1st defendant is the husband of the 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant is their son.

(2.) The defence is that the agreement is true and valid and the representation of the mother as guardian to the plaintiff is valid and the defendants took possession of the property, in pursuance of the agreement, and improved the same and the plaintiff, who could not obtain the necessary permission due to the prohibition of alienation of vacant lands in Urban Area Act, 1972 went back on the promises when he ultimately obtained permission under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the trespass is not true and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The suit was filed on 25-10-1980. The defendants, who contested the suit, filed a counter suit on 20-11-1980 for specific performance of agreement to sell for the very agreements which the plaintiff in the earlier suit described as nominal. Virtually the defence in 0 S 1052/80 is the plaint in 0 S No. 1181/80-the suit for specific performance. In 0 S No. 1052/80, common evidence was recorded for both the suits and the plaintiff in 0 S 1052/80 was described as plaintiff and the defendants in that suit were described as defendants for purpose of both the suits, while assessing the evidence. In 0 S 1052/80 the following issues are framed: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant from the suit land? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to future mesne profits, if so at what rate ? 3) Whether this suit has no cause of action ? 4) Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ? 5) To what relief ? The issues framed in 0 S 1181/80 are : 1) whether the agreement of sale dt. 11-4-72 is valid and enforceable ? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the agreement of sale dt. 11-4-72 ? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to protection of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act ? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation and demages, amounting to Rs. 2 lakhs as alleged ? 5) To what relief ?

(3.) It is seen there is no issue whether the suit agreement Ex B-1 is nominal or not. But, the court below gave all pertinent findings for that conclusion and dismissed the suit, holding that the suit agreement is void and it is executed by the mother of the plaintiff, while the father of the plaintiff is alive and consequently dismissed the suit for specific performance and decreed the suit for possession. Againt the said judgment and decree, the defendants in 0 S 1052/80, who are also the plaintiffs in 0 S 1181 '80 filed appeals against the judgments and decrees in both the suits