GOLI LAXMINARAYAN Vs. YELETI VEERBHADRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three Letters Patent Appeals have been filed assailing the common judgment dated 07.07.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 14954 of 2005, 15692 & 12631 of 2005. The controversy in all the three writ petitions was with regard to the orders passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rayagada in Title Suit Nos. 1 of 1994 and 19 of 2001. The facts and the parties being one and the same, and the point of law being intricately connected with each other, the appeals are heard together on the request of the learned Counsel for the parties and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THIS Court does not intend to delve into the facts in detail as the same have been discussed in extenso by the Hon'ble Single Judge in his judgment as well as by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rayagada and also by the Addl. District Judge, Rayagada. This Court however, intends to deal with only those facts, which are necessary for appreciating the inter se disputes.

(3.) IT appears that one Smt. Palasa Venkayamma ( hereinafter to be referred to as 'Venkayamma') was the exclusive owner of land appertaining to plot No. 279/332/1 under Khata No. 52/3 and lands appertaining to plot Nos. 279/332/2 and plot No. 279/331 under Khata No. 25 in village Barijolla in Rayagada. According to learned Counsel for the Appellant, the said Venkayamma on 2.10.1990 had executed an agreement undertaking to alienate the aforesaid properties in favour of the Appellant for a consideration of Rs. 1,30,000/ -. On the said date, it is averred, a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/ - was paid and possession was handed over. It was agreed that the balance of Rs. 10,000/ - shall be paid at the time of registration. The said Venkayamma, it is alleged, did not execute and register the sale deed. Consequently, the Appellant filed Title Suit No. 1 of 1994 seeking a direction to the vendor for specific performance of the agreement and the sale deed. In the said suit a petition was also filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure being M.J.C. No. 3 of 1994 to injunct Venkayamma from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff -Appellant and the said prayer was allowed. The notice of the suit issued to Venkayamma, as would be evident from the records, was served upon her personally on 24.2.1994 along with the notice of M.J.C. No. 3 of 1994. However, Venkayamma did not appear in the suit INDIAN LAW and an ex parte decree was passed. Thereafter, the Appellant filed execution petition to execute the decree passed in Title Suit No. 1 of 1994 and the same was registered as Execution Petition No. 17 of 1994. The said Venkayamma also did not appear in the execution case, consequently, the decree was executed.