JALLA BHADRAYYA Vs. TATIKONDA SURYAKANTHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.69 of 1984 in the Court of the District Munsif, Chinthalapudi is the appellant. He filed the suit against the respondents for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 05.12.1981. It was pleaded that the first respondent and her son, the second respondent, offered to sell the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.0.10 cents, for a consideration of Rs.1,150/-, at the rate of Rs.115/- per cent and that on the date of agreement, a sum of Rs.1,050/- was paid. The sale deed was to be executed as and when the balance of sale consideration is paid. Possession of the property was said to have been delivered to the appellant on the date of agreement itself. According to the appellant, he offered to pay the balance of consideration to the respondents, but they have refused to receive the same. On behalf of the respondents, a common written statement was filed. They denied the very execution of the agreement of sale. It was pleaded that they neither received any consideration nor delivered possession of the suit schedule property, and that the agreement is a forged one.

(2.) On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.Al to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.l and 2 were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. Through its judgment, dated 30.09.1986, the trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed A.S.No.6 of 1987 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit, through its judgment, dated 18.07.1994. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) Sri B.V.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had proved to the satisfaction of the Courts below that the respondents have executed Ex.A1, received the consideration and delivered possession of the suit schedule property, and that there was no justification for the lower appellate Court in reversing the decree of the trial Court. He contends that D.W.I, the second respondent herein, was so untruthful that he has gone to the extent of denying his thumb impression on the vakalath and written statement filed in the trial Court. The learned counsel points out that by examining the scribe and attestor, the appellant proved the execution of Ex.Al and that the decree passed by the trial Court, ought not to have been reversed. He submits that it was never the case of the respondents that they have not been read over the contents of Ex.Al, and in fact, the particulars of the land, etc., were furnished by the respondents themselves, and that there was no basis for the lower appellate Court in reversing the decree of the trial Court, only on the ground that the contents of Ex.Al were not read over to the respondents.