GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2, who are the appellants herein, preferred this appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 12-10-1990 in O. S. No. 125 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nuzvid.

( 2 ) THE parties are described as arrayed in the trial Court. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :

( 3 ) THE plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 26-9-1969 and for recovery of possession from the defendants and for future mesne profits with interest. It is stated that one late Gadicherla Seetha Mahalakshmamma, was the original owner of the suit schedule property, who succeeded to these properties as the only heir of her late husband Gadicheria Venkata Gopala Krishna Rao under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. It is averred that one Sri Kopparthi Venkatachalam, the brother of the said Seethamahalakshamamma acting on her behalf leased out the suit schedule property to the plaintiff on 5-7-1968 under a written agreement of lease and delivered the possession of the same to the plaintiff who agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 25. 00 per year and entitled the plaintiff to make necessary erections. Accordingly the plaintiff erected thatched house and he has been in possession and enjoyment since 5-7-1968. Thereafter, Smt. Seethamaha-lakshmamma offered to sell the schedule property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1,000. 00. The plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration before 26-9-1969. On 26-9-1969, she executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and agreed to execute and register the necessary sale deed, and she also acknowledged the possession of the said schedule property under above agreement of sale dated 26-9-1969, Since then the plaintiff has been paying house tax to the Tiruvuru Gram Panchayat. He has been using the said thatched house for his carpentry and smith work. While matters stood thus, on 14-7-1974 defendants 3, 4 and 6 attempted to forcibly occupy the schedule land and dispossed the plaintiff from It. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit O. S, No. 253 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsifffs Court, Tiruvuru for a permanent injunction. In that suit an ad-interim temporary injunction was granted to the plaintiff against the defendants 3 to 6. Subsequently, the defendants undertook not to interfere with the plaintiffs possession and on the advise of the mediators the plaintiff withdrew the said suit and did not press for it, it is further averred that subsequently, in the year 1978 when the plaintiff and his family were away from village, defendants 3 to 6 unlawfully trespassed into the house and occupied about Ac. 0. 03 cents. After he returned to the village he objected for trespassing into the land unlawfully.

( 4 ) IT is further stated by the plaintiff that he came to know that Seethamahalakshmamma died and her estate became, evolved in litigation. Therefore, the plaintiff waited all the while that some authoritative decision would come out from the said, litigation initiated by Chilukuri Kamalamma, claiming to be the wife of the Gopala Krishna, impleading the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 285 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsifff, Triuvaru, it is further averred that the defendants are in unlawful possession and occupation of the properties since 26-11-1981

( 5 ) IT is further stated that the defendants 1 and 2 are claiming to be the legatees under, the will executed by Seethamahalakshmamma. As the defendants 1 and 2 are claiming to be the legatees, the plaintiff requested the defendants 1 and 2 from January, 1981 to execute and register the sale deed for the suit schedule property in his favour as the legatees of late Seethamahalakshmamma. But they postponed the same on the ground that the litigation in respect other estate was not yet decided. So a comprehensive suit for the relief of specific performance against the defendants 1 and 2 and the relief of recovery of po

Click Here to Read the rest of this document