G ANJANEYULU Vs. GURRAM KRISHNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful 2nd defendant in O.S. No.78/82 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Chittoor. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the 1st defendant in the said suit. The suit was instituted for the relief of specific performance of contract of agreement of sale dated 26.11.1981. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, on the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the Issues and having recorded the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, D.W.1 to D.W.5 and having marked Exs.A-1 to A-11, came to the conclusion that the appellant and the 2nd respondent, both defendants be directed to execute sale deed as per the terms dated 16.11.1981 in favour of the plaintiff, and in default the plaintiff be at liberty to get the sale deed registered through process of Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

(2.) Sri M Ravindranath Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had taken this Court through the respective pleasdings of the parties and also the evidence available on record and would maintain that the findings recorded by the trial Court that the appellant/2nd defendant is not a cultivating tenant and that he has no statutory preference under Section 15 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act 1956, are unsustainable findings. The learned Counsel also would point out that when acceptable oral evidence is available on record on the aspect of the appellant/2nd defendant being a cultivating tenant, the learned Judge should have relied upon the said evidence and should not have decreed the suit. The learned Counsel also pointed out to Ex.A.6 sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant and would maintain that the said sale deed being in conformity with Section 15 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act 1956, the learned Judge should have recorded a finding that the said sale transaction is a valid one and in the light of the same should have negatived the relief of specific performance. The Counsel also pointed out that in the facts and circumstances of the case it would be just and proper to order refund of the earnest money in stead of decreeing the suit granting the principal relief of specific performance.

(3.) On the contrary, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent/ plaintiff had taken this Court through the evidence available on record and would maintain that this is a clear case of the breach committed by the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant was set up only with a view to get over the agreement of sale in question and at any rate the plea of tenancy had been disbelieved appreciating the oral evidence available on record in proper perspective and in view of the same the findings recorded by the trial Court need no disturbance at the hands of this Court.