Y RAMAMANI Vs. M BIKSHAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Second Appeals are between the same parties and in respect of the same subject-matter. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in Second Appeal No.248 of 1994. Smt.Pullamma, the mother of the respondent was the absolute owner of house bearing Ho.1-7-578/4, admeasuring about 246 sq. yards situated at Ramnagar, Hyderabad. That was purchased by the appellant for consideration of Rs.5,000/- through a sale deed dated 14-06-1974. On the same day, the appellant executed an agreement, to reconvey the suit schedule property, on condition that the sale consideration is repaid within three years. A rental deed was executed by the appellant in favour of the husband ,of Pullamma, by name Chittari, and their son, the respondent, stipulating the rent of Rs.113/- per month. Pullamma and Chittari died. The respondent is their sole legal representative. The appellant filed O.S.No.2916 of 1980 against the respondent and his father, for eviction. She pleaded that the respondent and his father ape her tenants, and they committed default in payment of rent from February 1977 onwards. A notice dated 23-07-1980, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short 'the Act'J was issued, The relief of recovery of a sum of Rs.4,068/- towards arrears of rent, for the period from 14-08-1977 to 14-08-1980 was also claimed.

(2.) The respondent and his father filed writte'n-statement, opposing the suit. It was alleged that the sale in favour of the appellant, was more in the form of a security. They pleaded that the property was worth lakhs, as on the date of the sale deed, and the fact that it was sold only for a sum of Rs.5,000/-, discloses that it was almost in the form of a mortgage, by conditional sale. It was alleged that the period specified in the agreement, dated 14-06-1974 was extended, through a separate deed dated 03-12-1977, enhancing the rent to Rs.150/- per month. They expressed the readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. They complained that the appellant avoided reconveyance, even after they offered to pay the agreed consideration.

(3.) Pullamma filed O.S.No.176 of 1982 in the Court of VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 14-06-1974, as extended by document dated 03-12-1977. The contents of the plaint, in this suit, were almost the same as those, in the written-statement filed in O.S.No.2916 of 1980. Pullamma died during the pendency of the suit. Hence, the respondent herein was brought on record, as legal representative.