MIRZA HUMAYUN FUR Vs. M.SREENIVASA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil First Appeal has been filed by the defendants No.1 to 7, defendants No.10, 13 to 18 in O.S.No.506 of 1989 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy under Sec. 96 of C.P.C., assailing the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.506 of 1989 dtd. 19/12/1996 by which the Court of Principle Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy, hereinafter be referred as 'Trial Court' passed Decree in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and directed the 8th defendant to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.22-00 gts in Sy.Nos.493, 494/1, 494/2, 494/3, and 497 of Narsingi to Mancherevula Village, Erstwhile Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Erstwhile Ranga Reddy District i.e., Suit Schedule Property on the following grounds.

(2.) The trial Court failed to appreciate the pleadings of the parties and proceeded to pass a Decree without appreciating the crucial issues. The trial Court decreed the suit simply because the land grabbing case No.136/89 was decided in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and proceeded automatically to hold that the agreement pleaded by the respondents/plaintiffs is valid. The trial Court failed to appreciate the said land grabbing case related to unauthorized and illegal possession whereas, O.S.No.506 of 1989 was filed for specific performance, thereby, the trial Court has to examine whether the respondents have satisfied all the ingredients of Sec. 16 and other provisions of Specific Relief Act. The trial Court failed to appreciate Issue No.1 cannot be decided merely on the basis of land grabbing case more particularly, when the appellants herein are taking proper steps challenging the Judgment in the said land grabbing case. The trial Court failed to appreciate whether the alleged power of attorney which is the basis of the suit claim of respondents included the suit property but proceeded to hold as if, there is no dispute.

(3.) The appellants have further pleaded that the trial Court while deciding the Issues No.2 and 3 relied on the evidence of DW.1 whose power of attorney was canceled but the trial Court placed reliance upon the evidence of DW.1 who naturally supports the respondents/plaintiffs. There was no authorization or power of attorney by defendant No.4 (appellant No.4) in favour of DW.1 but the said aspect was discussed by the trial court. The appellants further pleaded that the trial Court failed to appreciate whether the respondents/plaintiffs are able to prove the existence of a valid agreement of sale and failed to appreciate that the respondents did not take any steps to discharge their obligation, thereby they are not entitled to any relief from the trial Court.