Sri Venkatesh K. and Sri Dhanpal K. vs Sri J. Anthony Swamy

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants. The appellants claim to be in possession of the suit property by virtue of an agreement of sale and a power of attorney. It transpires that the agreement was entered into in the year 1990 and the appellants claim to be in continuous possession and had even put up partial construction of the property and it was not completed on account of lack of funds, according to the appellants. However, on interference by the defendant, a suit was filed for injunctionary reliefs. The suit was contested and the defendant having set up a sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit property, the court below has weighed the material produced by the appellants as against the documents produced by the defendant and has held in favour of the defendant, as there was no title deed in favour of the plaintiffs.

Though the learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently contends that the purchase by the defendant is not genuine and that he had not purchased from the vendors of the appellants, the fact that the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff was of the year 1990 and no steps were taken to seek specific performance of the contract, would disable the appellants from claiming better title in view of registered document of sale being relied upon by the respondent. The respondent having been served, remains unrepresented. There is no merit in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is rejected.