MUDUREDDIPALLE SANJEEVA REDDY Vs. BUTTURU RAMA MOHAN REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent filed O.S.No. 321 of 1999 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, against the 2nd respondent, the appellant and respondents 3 and 4, for the relief of recovery of certain amount. He pleaded that the 2nd respondent entered into an agreement of sale with him, on 3-7-1978, offering to sell an item of immovable property for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, and received Rs. 75,000/-, as advance. It is stated that, shortly thereafter, the 2nd respondent executed sale deeds in favour of the appellant and respondents 3 and 4, as regards the same property. The suit was opposed by the appellant and respondents 2 to 4. The 2nd respondent did not deny the execution of agreement of sale in favour of the 1st respondent. The appellant and respondents 3 and 4 filed common written statement, asserting their title over the property on the basis of sale deed, dated 18-12-1998. Though its judgment, dated 22-4-2002, the trial Court decreed the suit, and created charge over the property, owned by the appellant. A.S.No. 126 of 2002, filed by the appellant, in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, was dismissed, on 27-7-2007. Hence, this Second Appeal.

(2.) Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the only way, through which the 1st respondent could have enforced his right, under the agreement of sale, was to file a suit for specific performance, and that a suit for mere recovery of amount was not proper remedy. He contends that it is impermissible in law to create charge over the property, owned by an individual, as regards the debt owned by another.

(3.) Sri K. Sitaram, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, submits that the trial Court passed a decree following the law laid down by the Supreme Court and other High Courts, and no interference is warranted.