R. BAYAPU REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the defendant in Small Causes Suit no. 18 of 1991 on the file of the Additional district Judge, Hindupur questioning the decree and Judgment dated 18-3-1993 by which the suit was decreed for an amount of Rs. 4,500/- with proportionate costs and interest.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein who is the plaintiff in the suit had filed the above said suit seeking recovery of an amount of rs. 8,000/- from the petitioner, contending that the petitioner executed an agreement of sale on 9-2-1988 relating to some property agreeing to sell the same for Rs. 67,500/- and received an amount of Rs. 4,500/- as advance; that subsequently it came to be known that the petitioner was having only limited rights in the said property and her daughter alone was having title to the same; that her daughter subsequently sold away the said property to others; that she, therefore, committed breach of contract and that he was, therefore, entitled to receive back the amount of Rs. 4,500/- paid by him as advance and also a further amount of Rs. 3,500/- by way of damages for breach of contract. The petitioner contested the suit admitting the execution of the agreement of sale by her in favour of the respondent and also the receipt of Rs. 4,500/- from the respondent by way of advance, but contending that the respondent himself failed to obtain the sale deed from her and he was never ready and willing to perform his part of contract and that in view of such circumstances, the respondent was not entitled to seek recovery of the advance amount or any amount by way of damages for breach of contract from her. She also contended that the suit is not maintainable in the Small Causes Court and that the additional District Judge, Hindupur was also not having territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.

( 3 ) ON the basis of the evidence placed before him, the learned Additional District judge came to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 4,500/- paid by him to the petitioner as advance under the agreement; that he is, however, not entitled to receive any amount by way of damages; that the suit is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and that the additional District Court, Hindupur is having territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. He, therefore, decreed the suit for the amount of rs. 4,500/- with proportionate costs and interest. The defendant has now chosen to file the present revision aggrieved by such decree and Judgment of the Lower Court mainly contending that the Small Causes court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and the decree passed by it is therefore liable to be set aside and that at any rate the respondent-plaintiff is not entitled to recover from her the amount of Rs. 4,500/- for which the suit was decreed.

( 4 ) THE points that arise for consideration in the present revision petition are : i) whether the suit is cognizable by a court of Small Causes as held by the lower Court ? and ii) whether the respondent is entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 4,500/- paid as advance under the agreement of sale from the petitioner? point No. 1 : It is clear from the averments in the plaint in the suit and the allegations contained in the written statement and also the evidence adduced in the suit that the petitioner executed the agreement of sale dated 9-2-1988 in favour of the respondent agreeing to sell the land for an amount of rs. 67,500/- and received an amount of rs. 4,500/- from him as advance. But subsequently it came to be known that the petitioner was not having valid title to the said property and that her daughter alone was having rights in the same. The petitioner examined as RW-1 has admitted in her evidence that she was having only limited rights in that property and that her daughter who was minor alone was having absolute rights for the same. It is also clear from the evidence that the said property was subsequently sold away in favour of some other person fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document