BURRA VENKATA KONDALA RAO Vs. KOTIPALLI MANIKYALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff in O. S. No. 45 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Jude, pithapuram preferred the present appeal. The defendant in the said suit is the respondent in the present appeal. Appellant as plaintiff instituted the said suit praying for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 25-1-1987, and also the alternative relief of refund of Rs. 40,700/- with interest and for other appropriate reliefs. The relief portion had been amended by an order, dated 3-11-1993, made in I. A. No. 607 of 1993, whereunder, specifically, relief had been prayed for directing the defendant to accept the balance of sale consideration of rs. 9,300/- and register the sale deed and to deliver possession and in the event of failure on the part of the defendant to comply with such direction, the plaintiff to get the same registered through due course of law and to recover possession.

(2.) THE learned Subordinate Judge, pithapuram in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties recorded the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5, D. Ws. 1 to 5, and marked Exs. A-1 to A-10 and also Exs. C-1 to C-10 and after recording reasons came to the conclusion that the appellant-plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for and accordingly dismissed the suit directing the parties to bear their own costs. Hence, the present appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

(3.) SRI Ramanarao, learned counsel representing the appellant-plaintiff, had taken this Court through the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the trial Court and would maintain that the trial Court totally erred in dismissing the suit despite the oral and documentary evidence available on record which would clearly establish the execution of the agreement of sale in question by the defendant. The learned counsel also would maintain that the payment endorsements also had been duly proved in the light of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 as well. Learned counsel also specifically pointed out that the very fact that Exs. A-9 and 10 also had been delivered would go to show that ex. A-6 is a genuine transaction. Further, the learned counsel specifically pointed out that the witnesses were not cross-examined by the counsel representing the respondent-defendant before the trial Court had hence, in view of the fact that the evidence deposed by those witnesses in chief-examination had been left unchallenged and could not be discredited in any way whatsoever. Automatically the appellant as plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs prayed for and even the matter negating the reliefs cannot be sustained.