K. Ranga Reddy vs Chinna Reddigari Kanakamma and Another

Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.—The appellant herein was the original plaintiff in O.S. No. 19 of 1974 which was filed in the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi, against the respondents-defendants herein.

The plaintiff had instituted the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was agreed to be sold to him under the Ex.A-1 agreement by the father of Defendant No. l named V. Ranga Reddy. At the time of executing Ex.A-1, Ranga Reddy was alleged to have accepted Rs. 13,000/- from the plaintiff and had agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in due course by accepting a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. It was further alleged by the plaintiff that at the time of executing Ex.A-1 agreement of sale, the possession was handed over to him and when Ranga Reddy did not execute the agreement of sale (sic. sale deed), the plaintiff was constrained to issue notice to Ranga Reddy calling upon him to execute the agreement of sale (sic. sale deed). It was also alleged by the plaintiff that Ranga Reddy did reply to the said notice through his Advocate in which he admitted to have executed the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and he showed his willingness to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff filed the present suit after the death of Ranga Reddy against the defendants-respondents herein being the legal representatives of the plaintiff (sic. Ranga Reddy).

The defendants on appearance filed the written statement and denied the averments made by the plaintiff. It was the specific case of Defendant No. l in the suit that her deceased father V.Ranga Reddy did not execute the agreement of sale at any point of time. On the contrary, he executed a settlement deed Ex.B-7 in her favour on 4-1-1974 and it was subsequently registered on 7-1-1974. The plaintiff thus has no right to prosecute the suit. With these averments, it was prayed by the defendants that the suit be dismissed.

It further appears from the record that on the strength of evidence led by both parties, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not able to prove Ex.A-1 and thus, the suit for specific performance of the contract of sale came to be dismissed.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the original plaintiff carried the matter in appeal by filing A.S.No. 23 of 1987 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. The learned Judge also dismissed the suit of the plaintiff confirming the decree of dismissal passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the present Second Appeal has been filed.

Mr. P.V.Sanjay Kumar, appearing on behalf of the appellant herein, submitted at the Bar that both Courts below did not appreciate the evidence which was led by the plaintiff and came to the wrong conclusion that the deceased Ranga Reddy did not execute Ex.A-1 agreement of sale. The learned Counsel further submitted that in order to prove the factum of agreement of sale, the plaintiff had examined P.Ws. 2 and 3 who were attesting witnesses to Ex.A-1 and even their evidence was disbelieved by both Courts below. Thus, it was prayed by the learned Counsel that the suit of the plaintiff ought to have been decreed in his favour.

While rebutting the aforesaid arguments, the learned Counsel for the respondents-defendants, Mr. P.S. Narayana, submitted at the Bar that there have been a lot of discrepancies in the evidence led by the plaintiff. The trial Judge as well as the first appellate Court have properly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not prove the execution of the Ex.A-1 document which is alleged to have been executed by the deceased Ranga Reddy.

Both Counsel have taken me through the judgments of Courts below. It appears from the judgment of the first appellate Court that the Court did not believe the existence of A-l only on the ground that the attesting witnesses did not depose as regards the delivery of possession. It has been the specific case of the plaintiff that after executing the agreement of sale in his favour, the deceased Ranga Reddy had put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property in the presence of attesting witnesses. The first appellate Court held that on an earlier occasion in a different proceeding, the attesting witnesses had stated before the Court that delivery of possession was not given in their presence. The earlier statements made by the attesting witnesses were brought on record and contradictions were put to them to contradict with the previous statements as contemplated u/s 145 of Indian Evidence Act. Thus, the point of delivery of possession in the presence of attesting witnesses was totally disbelieved by the learned Judge.

The learned Counsel for the appellant herein brought to my notice the Ex. A-8 reply alleged to have been given by the deceased Ranga Reddy which is dated 10-3-1974 in which he admitted to have executed Ex.A-1 agreement of sale and also showed his willingness to perform his part of the contract. The said reply notice is alleged to have been given by the Advocate for late Ranga Reddy. But, unfortunately, at the time of leading evidence, no efforts were made by the plaintiff to call the Advocate in the witness box to prove Ex.A-8 reply notice and thus both Courts below held that Ex.A-8 was not properly proved and therefore the contents of Ex.A-8 cannot be relied upon. Thus, the evidence of both attesting witnesses was totally disbelieved.

Taking the above facts into consideration and the evidence which has been properly appreciated by the Courts below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding on facts. The learned Counsel for the appellant herein did not make any substantial question of law in the second appeal. Therefore, this Court holds that there is no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed confirming the decree of dismissal of the suit by both Courts below. No costs.

At the time of granting interim injunction, this Court had allowed the respondents-defendants herein to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant to the credit of O.S. No. 19 of 1974. But, now it appears from the entire evidence that the settlement deed was executed in favour of Defendant No. l alone and therefore Defendant No. l alone is entitled to withdraw the said amount.