D.N. RAJU Vs. SANTOSH VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 602 of 1994 and batch, on the file of the principal Junior Civil Judge (East and North), Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar; are the appellants. They filed the respective suits against the respondents 1 and 2, for the relief of specific performance of a common agreement of sale. According to them, the 1st respondent is the absolute owner of the property in the suit schedule and through her GPA, she executed an agreement of sale (Ex.A1), dated 22.10.1982, for sale of individual plots, to the individual appellants, through the medium of the 2nd respondent -Co -operative Housing Society Ltd. They pleaded that they paid the entire consideration for the suit schedule property and the 1st respondent went on postponing the execution of sale deeds, stating that permission from the Government is to be obtained, reference is made to the notices got issued on their behalf from time to time, and ultimately claimed the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale.

(2.) THE G.P.A. of the 1st respondent, who executed the agreement of sale, filed a written -statement, stating that the G.P.A. (Ex.C11), dated 25.06.1982 executed in his favour was cancelled by the principal, and as such, he cannot take any stand in the suit. One G.V. Ramakrishna Rao, who is said to have been appointed as G.P.A. by the 1st respondent, filed a written -statement. It was pleaded that the suit schedule property is part of urban agglomeration of Hyderabad, and with a view to protect the surplus land, an agreement of sale was executed on 03.11.1980 (Ex.B2), in favour of the 2nd defendant. He denied the execution of any agreement of sale in favour of the appellants, and stated that the suit agreement dated 22.10.1982 is a fabricated document, brought into existence with the collusion of the erstwhile G.P.A., Seshu Babu. It is also stated that the 2nd defendant -Society never had a President by name Amar Babu, and that the suit agreement is not binding upon the 1st defendant. He has also made a reference to an earlier agreement of sale in favour of his mother, Smt. Bala Tripura Sundial Devi and others, and ultimately prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

(3.) THROUGH a common judgment dated 26.12.2002, the trial Court dismissed the suits. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed A.S. Nos. 96 of 2003 and batch, in the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeals. Hence, these second appeals.