( 1 ) THE legal heirs of the plaintiffs are the appellants and the second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of n Additional district Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, in A. S. No. 126 of 1987, dated 8-8-1994 by which the judgment and decree passed in o. S. No. 21 of 1981, dated 21-4-1987 by the court of Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram, decreeing the suit was reversed and the suit is dismissed.

( 2 ) THE substantial question of law that is raised in the present second appeal is whether there is an embargo contained in section 17 of the Land Ceiling Act, ousting the power and jurisdiction of a Civil Court to pass a decree of specific performance of an Agreement of Sale ?

( 3 ) THE facts leading to the present second appeal are, the original plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 10-5-1970 executed by the original defendant, who died during the pendency of the appeal, agreeing to sell the suit schedule property at Rs. 7,500/- per acre ad received Rs. 5,270/- on the date of the agreement and further agreeing to receive the balance within a period of three years with 10 % interest per annum and as soon as the remaining amount is paid, the document has to be registered. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on 15-4-1972 for which an endorsement was made on the agreement, similarly paid another sum of rs. 1,000/- on 10-5-1973; and another sum of Rs. 1,000/- on 18-2-1974. The plaintiff also executed a promissory note in favour of the defendant on the date of the agreement itself, agreeing to pay the balance of Rs. 8,230/-, and in fact, the actual amount has to be ascertained after measuring the land. It is stated that the defendant admitted the execution of the agreement and delivery of possession to the plaintiff in her declaration as well as deposition in Land Ceiling Case, LCC no. 1661 of 1975. It is also stated that the plaintiff could not get the document registered because of the Ordinance and the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural holdings) Act, 1973 (for brevity the Act ). It is further stated that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the defendant prayed for time till the disposal of LCC. No. 1661 of 1975 and the appeal thereon. The plaintiff filed the original agreement and also the tax receipts in the said LCC and now in the present proceedings filed the certified copies of the same, as the plaintiff could not take return of the agreement and other documents.

( 4 ) THE defendant filed a written statement admitting the fact of execution of the agreement and also the receipt of the amounts by her as stated in the plaint and the endorsement made as to the receipt of the said amounts on the suit agreement as well as on the back of the promissory note. It is stated that the plaint schedule property is part of the property that was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff and others. The defendant is the owner of Acs. 8-60 of the land, which is a contiguous land having number of plots, which were agreed to be sold to different purchasers in different plots and the plaintiff is one of them. It is also stated that in spite of repeated requests by the defendant for payment of balance sale consideration and to obtain the sale deed, at their convenience the plaintiff and other agreement holders did not co-operate, finally a dispute was raised before the elders, like pw. 2 and others, and after negotiations it was agreed by the plaintiff and other agreement holders to re-deliver the land under their respective occupation to the defendant and the profits received by them till then were agreed to be appropriated towards the amount paid to the defendant towards the part sale consideration that was paid at the time of the agreement. It is further stated that the plaint schedule property as well as the other lands covered by the agreements were re-delivered to the defendant through her son Thota gangadhara Rao - DW. 2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document