( 1 ) IN this appeal the 1st defendant in o. S. No. 7 of 1983 and O. S. No. 657 of 1983 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, ranga Reddy District challenges the decree and judgment therein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit O. S. No. 7 of 1983. The 2nd respondent herein appears to be a proforma party.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit claiming that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property comprising of ac. 10. 36 gts. in S. No. 101 of Gundla pochampally Village, Medchel tq. R. R. District having purchased the same through registered sale deed dated 26-10-1965 from Mrs. B. Padmavathi Bai. The said property was being looked after by her husband Sri G. V. Reddy, who expired on 8-8-1981. When she found that the 1st defendant was in occupation of the land, she contacted him through her relative mr. Pratap Reddy asking him to vacate the same. The derendant insisted on payment of about Rs. 40,000/- towards expenditure incurred by him over the land. When the defendant did not vacate the land, she got issued a legal notice dated 7-12-1981 calling upon him to vacate the same. However the defendant got issued a reply dated 17-2-1982 wherein he has said that he holds an agreement of sale in the form of a receipt dated 5-12-1974 in respect of the said land and he paid Rs. 5,000/- to the plaintiff s husband on the date of the agreement and rs. 13,205/- at a later date and as such he was entitled for a sale deed in respect of the same. The plaintiff disputed the factum of her signing on the receipt dated 5-12-1974 or having received any amount subsequent thereto. She has referred to certain acts touching upon possession as well as mutation of records etc. Ultimately she prayed for a declaration that the receipt dated 5-12-1974 pleaded by the defendant, is a forged one and inoperative against her and consequently a decree for permanent injunction or in the alternative, a decree for possession in respect of the suit schedule property.

( 3 ) THE 1st defendant filed a written statement disputing the allegations contained in the plaint. He claimed that the receipt dated 5-12-1974 can be treated as an agreement of sale; he paid an amount of rs. 13,205/- on 14-12-1978 to the husband of the plaintiff; the balance of consideration of rs. 2000/-was payable at the time of registration of the document and that he was always willing and ready to pay the same. He has also taken the plea under Sec. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act claiming that his possession cannot be disturbed since he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In addition to refuting the allegations contained in the plaint, the 1st defendant has also taken additional plea and filed a counter claim and sought for a decree of specific performance of the said agreement.

( 4 ) ALMOST contemporaneously the 1st defendant filed O. S. No. 657 of 1983 against the plaintiff seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the land, which is in his occupation. The trial court clubbed both the suits and separate issues were framed in both the suits.

( 5 ) THE following are the issues framed in O. S. No. 7 of 1983. (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction or in the alternative for delivery of the possession of the suit lands? (3) Whether the defendant paid rs. 5,000/- on 5-12-1974 to the plaintiff and obtained the receipt? (4) Whether the defendant paid rs. 13,205/- on 14-2-1978 to g. V. Reddy, if so what is its effect? the following additional issue is framed on 9-2-1990. (1) Whether the defendant is entitled to specific performance as prayed for?

( 6 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff P. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs. A-1 to a-6 were marked. On behalf of the defendants D. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs. B-1 to B-27 marked.

( 7 ) ON an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the trial

Click Here to Read the rest of this document