HARIKISHAN Vs. BALAKISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Civil Revision Petition and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arising out of a common order dated 30-3-1979 made by the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in E.P. No. 16 of 1978 and E.A. No. 200 of 1978 on his file respectively may be conveniently disposed of together.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the revision petition and the appeal may be briefly stated :

(3.) The petitioner in E P. No. 16 of 1973 is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 296 of 1971 on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, while the respondents therein are the two defendants in the suit. The petitioner in E.A. No. 200 of 1978 is the 2nd defendant in the suit, while respondents 1 and 2 therein are the plaintiff and the first defendant in the suit respectively. The suit was instituted for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 1-8-1971 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff whereby she agreed to sell two mulgies bearing Municipal Nos. 15-7-389 and 15-7-390 situate at Bsgum Bazaar for a sum of Rs. 34.000/-and also for recovery of possession of the two mulgies. The 2nd defendant having purchased from the first defendant one of the two mulgies bearing No. 15 7-389 for a sum of Rs. 17.000/- under a sale deed dated 13-10-1971 Was imputed with notice of the prior agreemet of sale in favour of the plaintiff; Prior to the sale in his favour, the 2nd defendant was inducted as a tenant of the mulgi by the first defendant. The suit was decreed on 23-8-1976. C-C.C.A. No. 154 of 1976 on the file of the High Court of Andbra Pradesh preferred by the defendants questioning the decree was dismissed by Kuppuswamy J., on 20-1-1978. A Division Bench of the High Court by its judgement dated 21-8-1978 affirmed the decision of Kuppuswamy J., and rejected L.P.A. No. 67 of 1978 preferred by the defendants assailing his judgment, at the stage of its admission. An oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench was rejected. An application for grant of the special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Division Bench was also dismissed by the Supreme Court.