GOLI LAXMINARAYAN Vs. YELETI VEERBHADRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.(C). No. 14954 ot 2005 is connected with W.P.(C) Nos. 15692 and 12631 of 2005. The aforesaid three writ applications arise out of orders passed in two connected suits, namely, T.S. No. 1 of 1994 and T.S. No. 19 of 2001 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rayagada, and are taken up together for disposal. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that one Smt. Pasala Venkayamma, executed an agreement far sale in respect of Plot Nos.279/ 332/1 in Khata No. 52/3, Plot No. 279/332/2 and Plot No. 279/331 in Khata No. 25 in village Barijolla in Rayagada for Rs. 1,30,000 in favour of the Petitioner -Goli Laxminarayan. It is further averred that on the date of agreement, the Petitioner -Goli Laxminarayan paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000 & agreed to pay Rs. 10,000 at the time of sale deed. It is further averred that on the date of agreement i.e. 2.10.1990, possession of the plots under the agreement of sale was handed over to the Petitioner & the Petitioner claims that thereafter he has carried out agriculture operations on the said land in the year 1992 -93.

(2.) THE Petitioner had filed a suit (T.S. No. 1 of 1994) on 21.1.1994 seeking directions to the vendor to execute and register the sale deed on stamp paper to be supplied by the Petitioner and in the event of his failure, prayer was made before the Learned Court to execute the same in her favour. On 24.1.1994, the Petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 3 of 1994 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. to injunct Smt. Pasala Venkayamma (vendor) from interfering with the possession of the Petitioner and by Order Dated 25.1.1994, this prayer was allowed and the vendor Pasala Venkayamma was injuncted from interfering with the possession of the Petitioner by way of an ex -parte order of injunction.

(3.) IT is averred that the Petitioner issued a registered tetter on 16.4.1994 calling upon the Defendant Smt. Pasala Venkayamma to receive the balance sale consideration amount and to execute the sale deed and such notice was received by the Defendant on 17.4.1994. It is averred by the Petitioner that he deposited bank draft dated 25.2.1994 drawn in favour of the Court in terms of the directions contained in the Judgment on 26.4.1994. The Execution Petition No. 17 of 1994 was filed by the Petitioner on 14.7.1994 to execute the decree passed in T.S. No. 1 of 1994. Once again, it is alleged that notice of the Execution Proceeding was personally served on the Defendant on 5.9.1994 and the executing Court, vide Order Dated 24.10.1994 came to hold that the notice on the Judgment debtor (Smt. Pasala Venkayamma) was held to be sufficient. It is further alleged that the Petitioner filed an application along with the draft sale deed on 7.11.1994 praying for issue of notice to the Judgment -debtor and to direct her to execute the sale deed and once again by Order Dated 30.11.1994, notice was directed to be sent to the Judgment -debtor (Defendant) in the suit. Once again the executing Court by Order Dated 20.1.1995 came to a finding that notice was sufficient on being personally served on the Defendant whereafter on 26.4.1995 the Petitioner filed, non -judicial stamp paper worth of Rs.16,510 and on 10.5.1995, the sale deed was prepared, verified and signed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rayagada and was sent to the Registrar for registration. Accordingly, the sale deed was registered on 10.7.1995 and the balance sale consideration was directed to be paid to the Judgment -debtor.