GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J.

( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the common judgment dated i 4. 6. 2004, delivered by the learned ii Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada in o. S. Nos. 170 and 185 of 1997, the unsuccessful defendants in both the suits preferred these two appeals.

( 2 ) THE defendants in O. S. No. 170 of 1997 are appellants in A. S. No. 2804 of 2004 and the defendants in O. S. No. 185 of 1997 are appellants in A. S. No. 2834 of 2004. Plaintiffs in both the suits are one and the same.

( 3 ) SINCE these two appeals arise out of the same common judgment rendered by the Court below, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.

( 4 ) THE brief facts, according to the averments of the plaint in O. S. No. 170 of 1997 are that, the plaint schedule property admeasuring an extent of Acs. 7. 01 cts of dry land situated at Suryaraopet in Kakinada municipality is belonging to the sole defendant Adikesava Reddy, who agreed to sell the same to the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre and accordingly, he executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiffs on 16-4-1994, on payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration. As the said land was involved in a land acquisition proceeding before the government, the defendant agreed to execute the registered sale deed after the land was released from land acquisition and change of its category from afore-station into light Industrial area, and he further agreed to intimate the result of the proceedings in connection thereto. However, as there was no information from the defendant, the plaintiffs were constrained to issue notice dated 31-1-1995, calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed, but, as the defendant did not receive the said notice, the plaintiffs got issued another notice dated 30-11-1995 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed in their favour by 30-12-1995.

( 5 ) IT is further averred that at the instance of the defendant, the plaintiffs carted earth and levelled the land by spending an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and they also made ready a sum of Rs. 7,52,000/- for depositing before the Municipality towards conversion charges on behalf of the defendant. Though the said fact was intimated to the defendant, he did not respond. According to the plaintiffs, they are always ready and willing to get the sale deeds executed in their favour and to pay the balance sale consideration. However, on 15. 11. 1996 the defendant got issued a notice stating that he was not bound to execute any sale deed. On exchange of notices, the defendant called the plaintiffs to madras promising to settle the matter and when the plaintiffs went to Madras, the defendant promised to come to Kakinada on 10-4-1997, but he did not turn up. Hence the plaintiffs were constrained to file the above suit.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, the averments of the plaint in O. S. No. 185 of 1997 are that Adikesava Reddy who is arrayed as defendant No. 6 in the said suit, entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs on 16-4-1994 in respect of the schedule property of that suit, on behalf of Defendants 1 to 5, in the capacity of their General Power of attorney Holder, to sell the land in an extent of Ac. 2-32 cents, which is also situated at suryaraopet village of Kakinada Municipality, at the rate of Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre and for a total consideration of Rs. 16,24,000/ -. It is further stated in the plaint that by the time of entering into the agreement, a writ petition was filed by the defendant for withdrawal of the plaint schedule lands from land acquisition and as the Government agreed not to acquire the said land, the writ petition was withdrawn. Thereafter, the kakinada Municipality filed another Writ petition No. 8645 of 1989 for releasing of the said land from the Master Plan. However, the said writ petition filed by the kakinada Municipality for afore-station and lig

Click Here to Read the rest of this document