L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tadepalligudem, rendered in O. S. Nos. 44 and 158 of 1988. Hence, they are disposed of together. The parties to both the suits as well as the appeals are common. A. S. No. 40199 is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 44/88. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in O. S. No. 44/88.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit seeking relief of specific performance of an oral agreement said to have taken place on 1-5-1988 between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. It was the case of the plaintiff that it is the tenant in respect of the suit schedule property (ground floor) from 1973 onwards, the 1st defendant was taking hand loans of various amounts from time to time from the plaintiff, on 1-5-1988 the 1st defendant approached them offering to sell the property for a consideration of Rs. 2. 00 lakhs, on that day itself they paid an advance of Rs. 50,000/-, the balance of Rs. 1. 50 lakhs was payable on or before 11-5-1988, on the request of the 1st defendant they paid another amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 6-5-1988 and were ready and willing to pay the balance on 11-5-1988. In the meanwhile, they came to know about the attempts of the 1st defendant to sell the suit schedule property to defendants 2 and 3 and accordingly got a telegram issued on 10-5-1988 and thereafter they got issued notices through the advocate. However, the 1st defendant executed sale deeds in favour of defendants 2 and 3 conveying the suit schedule property to them. Therefore, the plaintiff approached the Court to grant a decree for specific performance.

( 3 ) THE 1st defendant filed a written statement accepting the tenancy of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property, but denied the alleged oral agreement of sale. It was his case that plaintiff was very irregular in payment of rents, he never approached them with an offer to sell the property and the so called oral agreement of sale, payment of Rs. 50,000/- each on 1-5-88 and 6-5-88 are utter falsehood and a deliberate attempt to grab the property. He has also narrated the factum and manner of selling the property in favour of defendants 2 and 3. Almost to the same effect were the contentions of defendants 2 and 3.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings in the suit, the trial Court framed the following issues :1. Whether the oral agreement of sale deed dt. 1-5-88 is true, valid and binding on defendants ?2. Whether the alleged payments said to have been made by the plaintiff to 1st defendant are true ?3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance?4. Whether the defendants 2 to 5 are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration ?5. To what relief ?"

( 5 ) SO far as OS. No. 158/88 is concerned, the same is filed by defendants 2 and 3 against the plaintiff as well as the 1st defendant in O. S. No. 44/88. In this suit, they sought for a decree for possession of the suit schedule property in view of purchase of the same from the 1st defendant and eviction of the plaintiff from the same. They have also prayed for a decree for Rs. 7,280/- representing the arrears of rent from the date of their purchase to the date of filing of the suit and also for determination of future profits under Order XX, Rule 12 of CPC.

( 6 ) THE broad averments in the plaint were that they entered into an agreement of sale dated 13-3-1988 with the 1st defendant to purchase the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs. 1. 95 lakhs. They paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards advance on the same day, the balance of consideration was payable on or before 22-5-1988 and in pursuance of the said agreement of sale, the 1st defendant executed sale deed dated 11-5-1988 in favour of the 2nd defendant transferring theb Schedule property and executed another sale deed dated 12-5-1988 transferring thec Schedule in favour of the 3rd defendant (B and C schedule properties constitute thea s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document