( 1 ) THE appellant, assailing the judgment and decree dated 14-11-1994 passed by the subordinate Judge, Bodhan, Nizamabad district, dismissing the suit O. S. No. 35 of 1985, filed by him for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 5-5-1983, filed the present appeal.

( 2 ) THE appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. For the sake of expediency, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

( 3 ) THE brief case of the plaintiff, as pleaded by him in the plaint and the amended plaint is that plaintiff claims that defendant No. 1 agreed to sell him an extent of Ac. 10-34 guntas in Sy. No. 47 and Ac. 11-00 in sy. No. 135 of Kandharpalli village of madnoor Taluk, for a sale consideration of rs. 48,000/-, and accordingly defendant No. 1 executed an agreement of sale dated 5-5-1983 in his favour, and pursuant thereto, he having paid an amount of Rs. 12,005/-, claims that defendant No. 1 had also put him in possession of the said lands. Thereafter, he claims to have paid an amount of rs. 10,201/- on 19-5-1983 and Rs. 4,450/- on 2-8-1984 towards sale consideration, and in acknowledgement of which, defendant No. 1 also passed on receipts. The plaintiff claims that he in all paid an amount of Rs. 26,656/- to defendant No. 1, and that though he is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 21,344/-, in spite of repeated oral requests, defendant No. 1 had not come forward to perform her part of the contract, and deferred the execution of the sale deed in his favour on one pretext or the other.

( 4 ) WHILE so, the plaintiff states that defendant No. 3, on the basis of a will dated 1 -1 -1982, alleged to have been executed by one Gopal Rao, husband of defendant No. 1, who died on 15-5-1982, in his favour bequeathing the properties covered by the agreement of sale and other properties, filed a suit in O. S. No. 138 of 1984 on the file of the subordinate Court at Bodhan, Nizamabad district, for declaration of his title over the properties mentioned in the suit, and though defendant No. 1 contested the suit contending that the will is a forged one, surprisingly she entered into a compromise with defendant no. 3, and ultimately, the said suit ended in a compromise, and in terms of which, a compromise decree was passed by the Court on 24-7-1985. The plaintiff states that as the properties covered by the Will dated 1-1-1982 and compromise decree dated 24-7-1985, include the lands covered by the agreement of sale, and as on the basis of the said documents and taking advantage of his absence in the village, defendant No. 3 occupied the lands covered by the agreement of sale, and as the cause of action for filing the suit arose on 5-5-1983, when the agreement of sale was executed in his favour by defendant No. 1, the plaintiff filed the present suit praying to set aside the Will dated 1-1-1982 and the compromise decree dated 24-7-1985 passed by the Subordinate court at Bodhan, and sought injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession of the lands covered by the agreement of sale and to direct respondent no. 1 to perform her part of the contract by executing the sale deed.

( 5 ) THE defendants filed separate written statements and amended written statements. Defendant No. 1 in her written statement specifically denied that she executed the agreement of sale deed 5-5-1983 agreeing to sell the lands covered thereby to the plaintiff, much less for the sale consideration mentioned therein. She denied having received any amount towards the sale consideration, much less on the dates mentioned in the suit, either by herself or through any of the defendants nor she passed any receipts nor she had put the plaintiff in possession of the lands, as claimed by him. She contended that the plaintiff was aware of the suit proceedings in O. S. No. 138 of 1984 and the resultant compromise decree dated 24-7-1985 passed therein, as he was the person who was instrumental in engaging an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document