L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF in O. S. No. 33 of 1995 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, is the appellant herein. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, through judgment dated 4-4-2001, he preferred this appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 15-1-1985, marked as Ex. A-1. It was pleaded that the 1st defendant is the owner of undivided l/4th share of the suit schedule property a rice mill at Narsapur; his brother, the 2nd defendant is the owner of another l/4th share, where the 3rd defendant holds 1/2 share in it. The plaintiff pleaded that the wife of the 1st defendant died in a fire accident, resulting injuries to 1st defendant also, and that the latter incurred huge expenditure in defending himself in a criminal case and for his treatment. To meet the same, he is said to have offered to sell his undivided 1/4th share in favour of the plaintiff. It was stated that an agreement of sale was executed on 15-1-1985, proposing to sell the undivided 1/4th share of the 1st defendant, for a consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs, marked as Ex. Al. He pleaded that a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid on the same day, and on two subsequent dates, viz. , 10-1-1988 and 20-12-1990; and sum of Rs. 50,000/- each, was paid under endorsements, marked as Exs. A-2 and A-3, respectively. It was further averred that symbolical possession of the property was delivered to the plaintiff. He claimed that though he is ready and willing to pay the balance of consideration, the 1st defendant is not coming forward to execute the sale deed. He filed the suit for the relief of specific performance, or in the alternative for a decree for refund of a sum of Rs. 6,34,950/ -. Defendants 4 and 5 came on record at subsequent stage.

( 3 ) THE 1st defendant denied the contents of the plaint, In his written statement he sated that he never executed Ex. A-1, much less received the amounts under endorsements in Exs. A-2 and A-3. He flatly denied the delivery of possession of the undivided share. He further stated that the funds necessary to defend himself in criminal case and to undergo treatment, were provided to him by his brother, the 2nd defendant, and their mother. He also denied the acquaintance or knowledge with the attestors in Exs. A-1 to A-3 and the scribe thereof. It was pleaded that the stamp paper utilized for execution of Ex. A-1 was never purchased by him, and that there was no necessity to purchase the same, at Penugonda, particularly when there are stamp vendors in his own pace of residence, namely, Narsapur. He denied his signatures on the documents. The 2nd defendant adopted the written statement of the 1st defendant as well as that of defendant Nos. 4 and 5.

( 4 ) THE 3rd defendant filed written statement denying the allegations. He did not plead any specific case, since no relief as such as was claimed against him.

( 5 ) DEFENDANTS 4 and 5 pleaded that the undivided share of the 1st defendant was settled on them, through settlement deeds dated 22-5-1985, 10-6-1985 and 11-6-1985. They made reference to the various facts, relating to the conduct of the 1st defendant and ultimately stated that in view of the settlement in their favour, the 1st defendant did not have the right, or capacity to execute Ex. A-1. They further pleaded that section 53-A of the Transfer of Property act (for short "the Act"), has no application to the facts of the case, since the possession was not delivered.

( 6 ) THE Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding inter alia that Exs. A-1 to A-3 were not proved.

( 7 ) SRI K. Chidamabaram, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court while considering proof of exs. A-1 to A-3, has taken a hyper-technical view, particularly as regards the purchase of the stamp paper, on which Ex. A-1 was written. He contends that the 1st defendant remained ex parte, and in that v

Click Here to Read the rest of this document