This second appeal against a specific performance suit was dismissed. The court upheld concurrent findings that appellants were estopped from challenging the legal notice and ruled the unregistered agreement admissible as stamp duty was paid correctly.
Second appeal dismissed with no costs.
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 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA SECOND APPEAL No. 924 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2011 passed by the VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Madanapalle, Chittoor, dismissing the appeal in A.S. No. 11 of 2006 filed by the appellants questioning the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2005 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Punganur, Chittoor District, decreeing the suit O.S. No. 18 of 2000, filed by the respondent for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10.11.1999.
Heard the counsel for the appellants-defendants and the counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and perused the judgment under appeal.
Both the Courts below upon appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the parties, have concurrently found that if really the appellants-defendants did not execute Ex. A1agreement of sale dated 10.11.1999, they ought to have responded to the legal notice, which the respondent-plaintiff got issued to them prior to the filing of the suit, calling upon them to execute regular sale deed. The appellants-defendants, instead of giving reply to the legal notice got issued by the respondent-plaintiff, kept quite. The appellantsdefendants having not responded to the legal notice got issued by the respondent-plaintiff, the Courts below held that they are estopped from challenging the contents of the legal notice, which the respondentplaintiff got issued prior to the filing of the suit.
The appellants-defendants though contended that Ex.A1agreement of sale is not admissible because it is an unregistered document, the fact remains, in a suit for specific performance of contract, the agreement need not be compulsorily registered. Since the respondent-plaintiff paid the stamp duty with penalty, the Courts below held that the appellants-defendants cannot take any objection to Ex. A1-agreament of sale. This apart, the Courts below further found that the stamp paper used for writing Ex.A1-agreement of sale, was purchased in the name of appellant-defendant No.1, and that being so, the appellants-defendants cannot take any objection on the ground that they are not immediate to the date of execution.
The findings recorded by the Courts below, as noticed supra, being concurrent findings of fact, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith in second appeal. This apart, there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law involved in the second appeal.
The second appeal lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
25th November, 2011 IBL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding refusal to execute agreement and estoppel warrant interference in second appeal.
Whether the unregistered agreement of sale was admissible in a suit for specific performance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Appellants-Defendants
Respondent-Plaintiff
N.V. Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
