BOLISETTI VENKATARATHANAMMA DIED Vs. N VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals arise against the common order passed in OS No. 42 of 1987 and OS No. 46 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali. These appeals are therefore taken up for disposal together. AS No. 538 of 1992 arises against the order in OS.No. 42 of 1987 which is a suit for specific performance filed by the respondent and OS.No.46 of 1987 against which transfer appeal No. 416 of 1993 arises was filed for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the respondent. AS.No.538 of 1992:

(2.) This appeal is brought by the defendant who is the owner of the suit premises of an extent of 400 Sq.yards with two attached sheds in Repalle Municipality. The respondent fifed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 21-1-1981 Ex.A.1. Under the said agreement the suit premises was agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs.26,000/- to be paid within one month. At the time of agreement of Rs.20,000/- was paid as advance and the balance of Rs.6,000/- was agreed to be paid within one month and in case of default it should carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The respondent who was in possession of the suit premises as tenant continued to be in possession. It is the case of the respondent that in view of the disputes pending between the parties which arise mainly as the respondent has not paid rentals, mediators brought about the settlement between them and according to the said settlement the suit agreement was brought into existence but the appellants filed O.S.No. 163 of 1981 on the file of the -District Munsif Court, Repalle, seeking among other, the relief of eviction. O.S.No. 163 of 1981 was renumbered as O.S.No. 46 of 1987 against which transfer A.S.No. 416/1993 arise and the respondent has been contesting the said suit. The respondent has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the appellants are avoiding the same and when a notice was issued to the appellants, they gave reply with false allegations denying the execution of the suit agreement. Hence the suit. It is the case of the appellants-defendants as disclosed in the written statement that the suit agreement was never executed by them, it was a forged document, it was brought into existence by the active assistance of the scribe and the attestors. They have also denied the alleged settlement and stated that the respondent is liable to pay huge amounts from 21-10-81. it is their specific case that the respondent has no capacity to have paid the advance amount of Rs.20,000/- under the suit agreement, that the suit was filed as counter-blast to the suit filed by the appellants.

(3.) In the above pleadings, the following issues were framed :