PRASHANT K RAVI Vs. S NARSAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.84/86 on the file of IV-Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

(2.) The respondent-defendant died during the pendency of the appeal and R.2 to R.6 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent by Order dt.18-6-1999 in C.M.P.No.3315/98.

(3.) Sri Dhanamjay, the learned Counsel representing appellants had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and made elaborate submissions that in the facts and circumstances of the case instead of decreeing the suit granting the relief of specific performance decreeing the suit for refund of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also pointed out that this relief was granted though specifically not prayed for exercising power under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Counsel would maintain that the mere admission made by P.W.1 relating to the delivery of cheque by the father would not seriously alter the situation since the delivery of cheque by the father would not amount to the payment of consideration by the father since the cheque was issued by the 1st plaintiff - P.W.1. Even otherwise, when the theory of obtaining signatures on the blank papers had been introduced since the signatures are not in dispute and the payment of part of consideration also not being in serious dispute, the suit should have been decreed. The specific pleading is that the defendant approached the 1st plaintiff. D.W.1's evidence is as vague as it can be and D.W.2's evidence does not throw much light on the question in controversy. The Counsel also would further submit that the role of the father was not pleaded and merely because P.W.1 deposed in that fashion, that by itself cannot be taken as a suspicious circumstance. For the hand-loan episode, absolutely there is no evidence. The execution of Ex.A.1 was proved in accordance with law by examining P.Ws. 1 and 2. The Counsel also commented that the non-issuance of reply also is an important fact that has to be taken into consideration. The Counsel also pointed out to the variance between pleading and proof. The Counsel also explained relating to the suspicion expressed by the trial Court in relation to the stamp paper and also certain simple discrepancies. The Counsel also explained that the stamp was purchased on behalf of 1st plaintiff by A.Narsaiah and when the hand loan episode was not established and when the execution of the agreement of sale Ex.A.1 in question had been duly proved and relating to the actual value of the property except the statement of D.W.1, when there is no acceptable evidence, negativing the relief of specific performance cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel in all thoroughness had taken this Court through the oral and documentary evidence and also commented that the recitals in Ex.A.13 also would not seriously alter the situation if this Court is satisfied that the agreement of sale had been duly proved. The Counsel also placed reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions.