REGULA KRISHNA Vs. KONDAPALLY SAMPATH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these three appeals arise out of a common Judgment they are being disposed of by a common Judgment. The property covered by the plaint schedule in all the three suits is the same.

(2.) Kondapalli Sampath Kumar and Joga Rao, who are the younger brothers of Hemachander Rao, filed a suit on 24-08-1981 for redemption of the property covered by the mortgage deed dated 03-12-1979 executed by Hemachander for Rs.10,000/- in favour of Regula Krishna in respect of the plaint schedule property alleging that they agreed to puirchase the said property and that Regula Krishna refused to receive Rs.10,000/- sent by them through a lawyer notice. Thereafter, probably after receiving summons in the said suit, Regula Krishna filed a suit for partition and specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 12.11.1980 executed by Hemachendra Rao in his favour after receiving an advance of Rs. 1,000/- alleging that Hemachander, who mortgaged the plaint schedule property to him earlier, had in collusion with his brothers Sampath Kumar and Jbga Rao brought into existence another agreement of sale dated 28.10.1980 in respect of the same property, impleading the minor son of Hemachander Rao also as a party to the suit. Thereafter, the minor son of Hemachander Rao filed a suit, as an indigent person, to cancel the two agreements of sale and the mortgaged deed dated 04-12-1979 executed by his father in favour of Regula Krishna and his brothers. The suits, which were filed in different Courts, were transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem for joint trial. Evidence was recorded in the suit filed by the minor son of Hemachander Rao, which was renumbered as O.S.No.34 of 1982.

(3.) In support of his case minor plaintiff examined three witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 3 but did not adduce any documentary evidence. In support of his case, Regula Krishna examined himself as DW-1 and three other witnesses as D.Ws.2 to 4. Sampath Kumar examined himself as D.W.5 and Joga Rao examined himself as D.W.8. They examined two other witnesses as D.Ws.6 and 7. Exs-B1 and B2 were markedl on behalf of Regula Krishna and Exs-B3 to B5 were marked on behalf of Sampath Kumar and Joga Rao. Holding that the mortgage deed executed by Hemachander Rao in favour of Regula Krishna is true and is supported by consideration, and that his brothers Sampath Kumar and Joga Rao, who have an agreement of sale in Their favour, are entitled to seek redemption of that mortgage the triel court held that Regula Krishna is not entitled to seek specific performance of the agreement in his favour and dismissed the suits filed by the minor son of Hemachander Rao and Regula Krislhna and decreed the suit filed by Sampath Kumar and Joga Rao. Hence, these appeals by Regula Krishna and theminor son of Hemachander Rao.