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 G.P.A., she executed an agreement of sale (Ex.A-1), dated 22-10-1982, for sale of individual plots, to the in dividual 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 writ- ten-statement, stating that the G.P.A. (Ex.G-11), dated 25-6-1982, 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 3-11-1980 (Ex.B-2), 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 Sundari Devi and others, and ultimately prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

(3.) Additional written-statements were filed by Seshu Babu and well as Ramakrishna Rao: The first one was mostly devoted to painting out the defect in the cancellation of the G.P.A., in his favour. In the second one, a plea was taken as to the genuinity of the agreement of sale, particularly with reference to the purchase of stamp papers, in the name of a third party.