N.SANJEEVA REDDY Vs. A.RAJANARSU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal suit has been filed by the appellants under Sec. 96 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.1 of 1998 on the file of II Addl. District Judge, Warangal, herein after will be referred as 'Trial Court', where under the trial Court passed a Judgment and Decree in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of the sale agreement. The appellants are defendants No.2 and 3 in the above referred original suit and being aggrieved by the Judgment of the trial Court, they preferred this appeal suit on the following grounds.

(2.) The Judgment and Decree of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The trial Court failed to consider the plaintiff came to the Court with unclean hands and alleged agreement of sale was prepared in collusion with 1st defendant and her husband. The trial Court ought to have seen that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, thereby could have dismissed the suit. The appellants further claimed that the trial Court failed to consider certain admissions made by the plaintiff during his evidence before the trial Court. The appellants have claimed that the respondent/plaintiff admitted before the Court below that he never verified the pahanies and other documents, telegraph notice was issued only to the 1st defendant on 17/1/1987, the land involved in the suit belongs to partnership firm and apart from the defendants in the suit, there are 3 more persons and defendants promised to bring the other partners for execution of the document, the date "15" was altered as "19" in the agreement of sale without any initials to that effect and he has got knowledge that 1st defendant and her husband tried to sell away the property to third parties, but the trial Court failed to appreciate the above admissions.

(3.) The appellants further pleaded that the trial Court ought to have seen that the respondent/plaintiff having filed an interlocutory application vide I.A.No.131 of 2004 failed to send the documents for comparision of signatures of defendants No.2 and 3 with their admitted signatures. The 1st defendant remained ex parte, thereby it shows the collusion between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. They have also claimed that the trial Court ought to have seen that the husband of defendant No.1, who was examined as PW.2 deposed about the alteration of date in the agreement from "15" to "19".