NARRA MADHAVA RAO Vs. B SADASIVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is filed as against the Decree and Judgment made in O.S.No.915/81 on the file of III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The said suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of the contract.

(2.) The 1st defendant died and defendants 2 to 6 were added as legal representatives as per orders in I.A.No.434/90 dt.28-6-1990. The respondents 7 to 11 were impleaded in the appeal by virtue of an order dated 18-11-2003 in C.M.P.No.26072/2003. Defendants 5 and 6 are shown as respondents 5 and 6 in the present Appeal and the Appeal was dismissed for default as against respondents 5 and 6 by order dated 31-12-2001.

(3.) Contentions of Sri K.R.Narasimham: Sri K.R.Narasimham, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court and had taken this Court in elaboration through the contents of Exs.A-1 to A-5 and also had taken through the evidence of two senior advocates and further contended that Sri M.Surya gupta, Advocate, had taken such stand only by being provoked by the nature of notice issued by Sri Anjaiah and in the light of the events, if the evidence to be carefully examined the evidence of Sri P.L.Gajapathi Rao and Sri M.Surya Gupta, it is clear that there was a concluded contract entered into, may be oral, and in the light of the clear evidence available on record, the learned Judge in stead of exercising the discretion of granting the relief of specific performance, erroneously negatived the said relief. The learned Counsel also pointed out to Exs.B-2, B-3 and B-4 and also the historical background of the litigation, prior series of litigations and how despite direction in stead of filing a suit for declaration of title and possession, a suit for possession simplicitor had been filed. The learned Counsel also pointed out to Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and Sections 18 and 19 of the Specific Relief Act. The Counsel also made elaborate submissions relating to the aspect of exclusive jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to make an order of eviction or to execute a decree of the nature which had been made. The learned Counsel also pointed out that respondents 7 to 11 are purchasers pendente lite and they cannot be said to be bona fide purchasers since these purchasers had knowledge about the pending litigation. The learned Counsel also made certain submissions relating to the doctrine of non est factum. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned Counsel meticulously pointed out to the relevant portions of the evidence of PW-2 and DW-2 in particular and apart from this evidence, the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 also had been heavily relied on and certain admissions made by DW-1 also had been pointed out. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence of PW-1 as well and the other oral and documentary evidence available on record. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the relevant portions of the written arguments submitted on behalf of the appellant. The learned Counsel made elaborate submissions in relation to Ex.B-3. The learned Counsel further pointed out to Section 10 of A.P. Rent Control Act and Section 58(c) of Transfer of Property Act also. The learned Counsel made certain submissions relating to the principle of res judicata in the context of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 114 and 116 of the Indian Evidence Act and further would maintain that both in law and also on the ground of equity, the reliefs as prayed for by the appellant/plaintiff to be granted. The learned Counsel also relied upon several decisions to substantiate his submissions.