G ROSAIAH Vs. C BALARAMI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the first defendant. The suit of the first respondent-plaintiff (for short, "the respondent") for specific performance of the agreement Ex. A-1 dated May 1, 1977 for sale of the appellant's land of Ac. 3-55 cents was decreed by the trial Court and the appellant is assailing its legality.

(2.) The respondent avers in his plaint that the appellant's castemen in Gontlagunta village migrated to the neighbouring village Petluru and himself too, to migrate, had entered in Ex. B-1 agreement of even date viz., May 1, 1977, to purchase Ac. 3-26 cents of wet land belonging to Shaik Masthan, the second defendant. In turn, the appellant agreed to sell his land to him (respondent). He is already having his own land on three sides of the schedule land, except on East. Therefore, he agreed to purchase the land for a total consideration of Rs. 18,000/-. He paid a sum of Rs. 100/- on the date of agreement i.e., on May 1, 1977; another sum of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid on May 31, 1977 and the balance amount of Rs. 7,900/- on January 31, 1973 and on receipt thereof, the appellant is to execute the sale deed. In terms thereof, he was put in possession of the land on the same day. He has been in possession and enjoyment and he paid the amounts within the stipulated periods and he was always ready and willing to take the sale deed. He also pleads that the appellant has taken possession of the second defendant's land by paying the consideration paid by him to the 2nd defendant. While he (respondent) has been in possession, in July 1973, his possession was attempted to be interfered by trespass. Therefore, Ex. A-5 notice dated August 14, 1975 was got issued calling upon the appellant to execute the sale deed and in reply thereto, the appellant under Ex. A-6 dated August 29, 1978, denied with false allegations of his liability to execute the sale deed. Thus he filed the suit. He produced Ex. A-2 (No. 2 Adangals) for Fasli 1387 (1977) and also the land revenue receipt Ex. A-4 dated July 5, 1978 in proof of his possession and enjoyment thereof.

(3.) The appellant, while admitting his ownership to the land and execution of Ex. A-1, pleads that it is not an agreement to sell his land but an exchange of Ac. 6-00 of land in Petluru. He avers that the respondent is the owner and the 2nd defendant was in possession thereof on his behalf; he agreed for the exchange; when the recitals were read over, it was written as if it is an agreement of sale and objected to it, but the respondent has assured it to be only an exchange; he believed the representation; next day when he contacted the village karnan he was informed that the land does not belong to the respondent; the second defendant had only AC. 3-00 of assigned inalienable patta land and the remaining AC. 2-83 cents is illegally occupied Government land. Thereon, he informed the respondent that he was not willing for the exchange and thereby he rescinded the contract; he has been continuing in possession of his lands and denied delivery of possession of the same to the respondent. When the respondent attempted to disturb his possession by trespass into his land, he repelled the trespass; the respondent played fraud and misrepresentation that he is the owner of Ac. 6-00 of lands in Petleru and on the faith thereof, he entered into the agreement of exchange and it was not a sale agreement as contended by the respondent. These facts have been stated in his reply notice Ex. A-6. The respondent impleaded Shaik Masthan as pro forma second defendant with an averment that if any findings are given, they would be binding on him also and no relief is sought against him.