THAMBIREDDI SESHUREDDI Vs. VANGALLU MALLAREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Nellore dismissing the plaintiffs suit for specific performance of a contract of sale. The agreement to sell is contained in Ex. J, and its counterpart Ex. I. Before the agreement the plaintiff held an auction of his lands and it turned out that the defendant was the highest bidder he having agreed to purchase the plaintiff's lands of 3 acres 44 cents, at the rate of Rs. 1,900 per acre. The defendant having deposited Rs. 100 that day agreed to pay the balance of Rs. 6,436 within one month and obtained a sale-deed. According to the plaint though the plaintiff asked the defendant to complete the transaction, the defendant was putting off and ultimately issued a registered notice Ex. K dated 21 April 1929 through an advocate in which he suggested : (1) that the lands were under attachment at the instance of the plaintiff's creditors and (2) that as the plaintiff has minor sons and as the property in question forms an ancestral property and as the said sharers are not parties to the letter of sale in question, the agreement is not valid. Then he called upon the plaintiff to give some security. The plaintiff replied by Ex. L, denying the attachment and alleging that the properties are his self-acquisition and anyhow the sale was made for discharging antecedent debts and that these facts were all known at the time of the auction and the bidders bid with full knowledge of these facts. He called upon the defendant to complete the contract.

(2.) The present suit for specific performance was filed on 6 August 1928. The defendant in para. 4 of the written statement pleaded that the suit properties were not the self-acquired properties of the plaintiff, that there were disputes between the plaintiff and his brothers, as regards the partition of the properties inherited from their maternal grandfather, that the properties auctioned included the whole property inherited from the grandfather and that his demand for security was justified. It is enough to notice the following issues, viz., 1, 2 and 8. The first is whether the plaintiff has an undisputed title to convey. Issue 8 raises the question whether the suit properties were subject to any attachment. Issue 2 is whether the defendant is entitled to call upon the plaintiff to furnish security. The most important issue is issue 1. It is settled law that if there is reasonable doubt as to the title to the property, Courts shall not exercise their discretion for decreeing specific performance. The suit lands consist of 3 acres 44 cents being a half share of 6 acres 88 cents consisting of:

(3.) Of the total extent of these three survey numbers, viz., 6 acres 88 cents the eastern half belongs to one Ippagunta Ranga Reddi. The western half is the subject matter of the suit. Now the plaintiff and his two brothers originally got these properties under a will executed by their maternal grandfather (Ex. B dated 28 November 1890). At the time of the execution of the will the testator had his daughter (Subbamma, mother of the plaintiff) and her three sons. In the will he refers to his father-in-law Narappa Reddi, and other family history. He then mentions the fact that he brought his son-in-law Raghava Reddi (plaintiff's father) to his house to help him in his cultivation. In para. 5 he says: Though after my death my property will devolve on you according to law, yet owing to the reasons mentioned by me hereinbefore I have made this will for making arrangements in respect of my properties after my death.