Second appeal over a decreed suit for specific performance of a 1999 sale agreement. Defendants claimed the agreement was fabricated and an alternate agreement existed with another buyer. The High Court found no substantial question of law raised and dismissed the appeal, confirming the decree.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
SECOND APPEAL No.775 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
Defendants in the suit filed this appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The sole plaintiff is the respondent here.
(a) O.S.No.143 of 1999 was a suit filed for specific performance of agreement for sale. It was filed by Sri Pyla Venkata Ramana as against Sri Gatta Ramulu @ Ramunaidu. During the pendency of the suit before learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chodavaram the sole defendant died and thereafter his legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.2 to 7. During his lifetime the sole defendant/defendant No.1 filed his written statement. Subsequently, the impleaded
2 Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.775 of 2009
legal representatives through fifth defendant filed an additional
written statement while the rest of the defendants filed a memo adopting the same. Record would further indicate that on the application of the legal representatives learned trial Court permitted the written statement of late defendant No.1 amended. The purport of the said amendment is to substitute the name of Sri Gatta Appa Rao with the name of Sri Bantu Appala Naidu.
(b) In the plaint it was urged that Gatta Ramulu was the owner of Ac.0.30 cents of immovable property in patta No.551 in Survey No.320-13 in Gowripatnam Village. On 26.03.1999 he executed an agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff. Sale consideration was fixed at Rs.1,350/- per cent. On the date of agreement for sale plaintiff paid and Sri Gatta Ramulu received Rs.6,000/- towards part of the sale consideration. By the terms of the agreement the plaintiff had to pay the balance sale consideration within one month and get the sale deed registered by Sri Gatta Ramulu. A week days after this document, plaintiff went to the first defendant and offered to pay the balance sale consideration but he was dodging it. On enquiries plaintiff had come to know the ill-intentions of Sri Gatta Ramulu in his
3 Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.775 of 2009
efforts to alienate the property to others. Thereafter, plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 08.04.1999 expressing his readiness and wiliness to have the registered sale deed and offered balance sale consideration. Sri Gatta Ramulu received the same but kept silent. In those circumstances, suit was filed seeking for specific performance and in the alternative for refund of money along with interest.
(c) Sri Gatta Ramulu/defendant No.1 filed a written statement and denied his intention to sell the property to the plaintiff and denied the execution of agreement for sale and stated that the plaint alleged agreement for sale is a fabricated document. He pleaded that he executed an agreement for sale dated 15.03.1999 in favour of Sri Gatta Appa Rao who offered to purchase this property at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per cent and accordingly he received an advance sale consideration of Rs.18,000/-. That the property was still in possession of Sri Gatta Appa Rao from whom originally this defendant purchased the property and to whom he owes Rs.16,000/towards a mortgage debt. Since the plaintiff being a Constable was high-handedly demanding him to sell this property to him and since this defendant refused to do it, the plaintiff has come
4 Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.775 of 2009
up with this false suit based on a fabricated document and
sought dismissal of the suit.
was also to the same effect.
the following issues and additional issues for its consideration:
Additional Issues :
5 Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.775 of 2009
against such evidence, the fifth defendant gave evidence as DW.1 and got examined another witness as DW.2. No documents were exhibited for defendants.
6
Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.775 of 2009
7
S.A.No.775 of 2009
executed the agreement of sale by receiving Rs.18,000/- as advance and agreed to sell the land at Rs.1,500/- per cent, and as such Court below ought to have dismissed the suit.
law are to be noticed. At the trial the plaintiff produced Ex.A.1agreement for sale dated 26.03.1999. According to plaintiff, the late first defendant was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. That aspect of the matter was never disputed by late first defendant or his legal representatives. The
evidence on record indicated and the terms of Ex.A.1 would show that late first defendant agreed to sell his property and plaintiff agreed to purchase it and a part of the sale consideration was paid and acknowledged as evidenced by Ex.A.1 itself and the balance was to be paid by the plaintiff within one month. The pleaded case of the plaintiff and the oral evidence of PW.1 further bolstered by Ex.A.2-notice dated 08.04.1999 shows that within 14 days from the date of agreement for sale plaintiff had issued the notice offering the balance sale consideration demanding the late first defendant to execute the registered sale deed. There was no response issued by late first defendant to Ex.A.2-notice. He only contended that plaintiff being a Constable fabricated such document. To overcome that plaintiff got examined the attestor as PW.2 and the scribe as PW.3. Both the Courts below discussed their evidence at length and concluded that they are witnesses of honesty and were elders in the village and there was nothing to suspect their credibility and their evidence on material facts remained intact and therefore, believed execution of Ex.A.1. Both the Courts below also recorded a finding that if really late first defendant believed that Ex.A.1 was a forged document, he
9 Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.775 of 2009
would have at least taken steps to send the document referred to a handwriting expert for obtaining an opinion and he did not do that. The fact that he did not issue a reply notice to Ex.A.2 was another circumstance considered against late first defendant. Both the Courts below also recorded that late first defendant did not even produce his otherwise undisputed signatures to enable the Court to have comparison of them as against signature attributed to him on Ex.A.1. It was after such thorough discussion of evidence, both the Courts below concluded that Ex.A.1 was proved.
10 Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.775 of 2009
making such thorough discussion of facts, evidence and circumstances, both the Courts below negatived all the contentions raised by the defendants.
11 Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.775 of 2009
and on considering the material on record, this Court holds that the case at hand does not fall within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cited ruling. The submission of the learned counsel for appellants is that the scribe/PW.3 in his evidence stated that when he was preparing the document the attestors were at a tea stall and that late first defendant was not present while he was preparing the document. According to learned counsel, this evidence of PW.3 was not properly appreciated by the Courts below and that resulted in injustice. For two reasons this contention has to be negatived. The trial Court and the first appellate Court are Courts of facts and their conclusions on facts bind this Court. Misappreciation of evidence itself is not a substantial question of law. In that view of the matter, this contention has to be negatived. Even otherwise when one sees the evidence of PW.3 and how it was analysed by both the Courts below, this very PW.3 stated that for preparation of Ex.A.1-agreement for sale instructions were given by both parties and fees was paid by both parties to the document. While he was preparing the
1 (2000) 1 SCC 434
12 Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.775 of 2009
document whether parties were just by his side or they were away from there has no bearing since after completion of the preparation of the document, the parties on both sides had come together and only after having accepted the contents therein Ex.A.1 was signed by late first defendant as stated by PW.3. Therefore, there was absolutely no misappreciation of evidence whatsoever. The appellants’ contention is about agreement for sale with Sri Bantu Appala Naidu was ignored by the Courts below. There is no merit in this. Having stated about a written agreement for sale it was up to the propounders to produce it and they failed to do it and they failed to examine Sri Bantu Appal Naidu in support of their contention. Thus, a fact that was concluded on evidence is sought to be raised without any merit. Learned counsel for respondent submits that on 22.07.2011, honouring the decrees, the registered sale deed was executed in pursuance of Ex.A.1 and only to prolong the litigation the appellants have been canvassing the arguments before this Court.
13 Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.775 of 2009
Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2009 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram in A.S.No.6 of 2007 stands confirmed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 04.01.2024 Ivd
14
Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.775 of 2009
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
SECOND APPEAL No.775 of 2009
Date: 04.01.2024
Ivd
2 issues framed by the court
Do the proposed substantial questions of law qualify as such under Section 100 CPC so that the second appeal may be admitted?
Whether the Courts below misappreciated the evidence of the scribe/PW.3 regarding the execution of Ex.A.1 agreement for sale?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan LalRelied on¶12
(2000) 1 SCC 434 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Defendants of O.S.No.143 of 1999 (Gatta Ramulu and legal representatives)
Pyla Venkata Ramana
Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
