KANUKOLANU VIMALA Vs. S LAKSHMANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant herein, who filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 15-6-1996. According to her the 1st respondent offered to sell an extent of Ac. 4.95 cents in R.S.Nos. 306/3 and 307 of Nandigama Village for a consideration of Rs. 3,95,400/- and the appellant agreed to purchase the same on 15-6-1996 and paid the entire consideration. The said agreement was attested by the wife of the 1st respondent and possession was also delivered to her on that date. Ever since, she was in possession and enjoyment of the same. As the 1st respondent is trying to evade the execution of sale deed and he is making attempts to trespass into the plaint schedule land she filed the suit. Pending the suit she filed LA. No. 729 of 1997 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam for a temporary injunction. As the said application was dismissed, this appeal is filed.

(2.) In the agreement respondents 2 and 3, who are minor unmarried daughters of the 1st respondent were also parties and being minors they are represented by their father, the 1st respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 in their counter affidavit denied the execution of the suit agreement. It is also denied that their mother also attested the said agreement. Receipt of consideration was also denied under the said agreement as also the delivery of possession.

(3.) In the lower Court no oral evidence was adduced. However, the appellant filed Exs. A-1 to A-9. Ex. A-1 is a copy of the village Account No. 3, Adangal/ Pahani for 1406 F, which is signed by the husband of the appellant. The lower Court commented that the appellant did not file a certified copy of No. 3 Account for 1996-97 and Ex. A-1 is not a certified copy of No. 3 account maintained in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer. Ex. A-2 is the land revenue receipt dated 2-5-1997 issued by the husband of the appellant. Ex. A-3 is the certified copy prepared by the husband of the appellant and it was attested by the Mandal Revenue Officer to show that the appellant was in possession of the plaint schedule property. Ex. A-4 is another certified copy issued by the Sarpanch to the same effect. Ex. A-5 are the receipts showing the payment of wages to the labourers engaged by the appellant. Ex. A-6 are also bunch of receipts. Ex. A-7 is the copy of the petition in I.A.No. 524 of 1997 and Ex. A-8 is the copy of notice issued by the appellant to Respondent No. 1 asking him to execute sale deed. Ex. A-9 is the postal acknowledgment of the said notice. These are the document which are filed to show the possession of the appellant. It is admitted that the appellant's husband is the Village Administrative Officer and as such the lower Court felt that it is not safe to rely upon the documents, Exs. A-1 and A-2, issued by him for judging the possession of the plaint schedule property. She ought to have obtained the certified copies instead of relying upon the copies issued by her husband. Ex. A-3 is also another certified copy issued by her husband, which was attested by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Ex. A-4 is the certificate issued by the Sarpanch. The lower Court commented that instead of producing the copies of the Adangals prepared by her husband she should have produced certified copies of adangals particularly in view of the allegation that the husband of the appellant has brought into existence those documents. The receipts in Ex. A-5 and the photographs, Ex. A-6 also do not support the case of the appellant. Ex. A-8, copy of the notice is a relevant document, since it is a notice issued by the appellant to the 1st respondent asking him to execute sale deed in pursuance of agreement of sale, but there is no mention of the date of agreement of sale. Therefore, the lower Court, in our view, rightly came to the conclusion that these documents do not establish the rightful possession of the appellant.