POOLA AJJAM VENKATARAMANA Vs. POOLA LAKSHMINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.6 of 1986, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kadiri is the appellant. He filed the suit against the respondent, for the relief of specific performance of agreement, dated 5.7.1985, in relation to 0-75 cents of land, along with 1/4th share in a well. It was alleged that as against the total consideration of Rs.20,000/-, a sum of Rs.19,000/- was paid, on the date of agreement, and the balance of Rs.1,000/- was to be paid by 15.3.1986. After informing the respondent about his willingness to pay the balance, the appellant is said to have gone to the office of Sub-Registrar on 18.2.1986, and since the respondent did not turn up, he got issued a notice, and thereafter, filed this suit. The possession of the property is said to have been delivered, on the date of agreement itself.

(2.) The respondent filed a written statement, opposing the suit. Respondent pleaded that his eldest brother is the father of the appellant, and that the latter used to take signatures of the respondent and other brothers, for one purpose, or the other. He denied the execution of agreement of sale, as well as delivery of possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, through its judgment dated 30.7.1992. The appellant filed A.S.No.56 of 1992, in the Court of Additional District Judge, Anantapur. The appeal was also dismissed on 25.7.1996. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that several substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this case, particularly, in the context of discharge of burden, once it was impliedly admitted by the respondent that he signed an agreement of sale, marked as Ex.A- 2. Learned counsel contends that the courts below have committed error in law, by not applying the relevant principles of appreciation of evidence, and denied the relief, even though the agreement of sale was proved, as required in law.