CHINTALAPATI MADHUSUDHANA SARMA Vs. KATTI SAMBRAJYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed O.S.No.434 of 1986 in the Court of the I Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, against the respondents, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 04.07.1973, and for consequential injunction. He pleaded that the mother of respondents 1 and 2, by name Pullamma, executed the agreement of sale, for transferring an extent of 500 Sq.yards described, in the suit schedule, for a consideration of Rs. 3,250/- and a sum of Rs.900/- was paid as advance on the date of agreement i.e. on 04.07.1973. It was pleaded that further sums of Rs.400/- each, were paid on two occasions and that he was waiting for necessary clearance, to be obtained from the Government, by Pullamma, for the purpose of execution of the sale deed.

(2.) The appellant got issued a notice, dated 10.05.1986, Ex.A-5, stating inter alia that even while the agreement is subsisting, respondents 3 and 4 started claiming that they have purchased the suit schedule property from respondents 1 and 2, the legal representatives of the original owner, and that the alleged purchase of the property by respondents 3 and 4 is not binding upon him. In the plaint, it was alleged that according to the terms of the agreement of sale, the vendor was under obligation to execute a sale deed within three months from the date of obtaining permission from the authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act (for short 'the Act'), by receiving the balance of consideration and till the date of filing of the suit, no intimation as to obtaining such permission was received.

(3.) On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, a common written statement was filed. It was stated that their mother late Pullamma leased the open land with a thatched shed on it to the appellant herein on a monthly rent of Rs.100/- and after her death, the appellant approached respondents 1 and 2 with a request to sell the property, at a throw away price. It was alleged that when respondents 1 and 2 expressed their unwillingness to part with the property, the appellant fabricated the alleged agreement of sale. They further pleaded that the property was sold in favour of respondents 3 and 4, through a sale deed, dated 24.02.1986, and symbolical possession was also delivered. Before the trial Court, P.Ws. 1 to 12 were examined on behalf of the appellant and Exs.A-1 to A-31 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws. 1 to 7 were examined and Exs. X-1 to X-3 as well as Exs.C-1 to C-5 relating to the Commissioner's report were also taken on record. Through its judgment, dated 04.10.1990, the trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed A.S.No.224 of 1990 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Guntur. The appeal was allowed on 09.02.1995. Hence, the second appeal.