MULLAPUDI VENKATARAYUDU Vs. KAKARLA MADHUBALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts in Brief : The unsuccessful plaintiff who could not get the relief of the Specific performance of the agreement of sale in question, at the hands of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kowur in O.S.No.107 of 1987, had preferred this appeal.

(2.) The respondent in the appeal who is the defendant in the suit, aggrieved by that portion of the decree ordering refund of Rs.42,500/- with some interest, had preferred the cross-objections raising several grounds.

(3.) The learned Judge on respective pleadings of the parties, on appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.l and 2, D.Ws.l to 3 and Exs.A.l to A-8, came to a conclusion that the appellant as plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands and a person approaching the Court with a false version is not entitled to the relief of the Specific Performance and accordingly, negatived the same. However, principally, on the strength of Ex.A-8, in which the rest of the amount payable had been specified by the respondent-defendant on a mathematical calculation, the learned Judge came to a conclusion that it may have to be implied that the respondent, defendant had received Rs.42,500/- and accordingly, the decree was passed for refund of the same with interest thereon. Both the parties aggrieved by the judgment and decree and the findings -recorded by the learned Judge had preferred the appeal and cross-objections as well.