V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THESE two Second Appeals arise from a common judgment in A. S. No. 11/1987 and cross-objections therein on the file of Additional District judge, Warangal, dated 15-7-1992 and affirming the findings of the trial Court in O. S. No. 33/1974 of Additional Subordina te Judge, Warangal, dt. 23-10-1986, except the issue relating to possession and dismissing the appeal and at the same time reversing the finding relating to possession and allowing the cross-objections filed by respondent-defendant No. 2. Pursuant to the above judgment and decree, the Appellate Court directed that the cross-objector-defendant no. 2 be put in possession of the suit land by an order dated 24-11-1992 in E. P. No. 193/1992. The revision petition is directed against the order directing delivery of possession. Hence, common questions arise in both the Second Appeals and C. R. P. and thus, they are being disposed of together.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to these appeals and revision petition in brief are: that the appellants-Plaintiffs filed O. S. No. 33/1974 for specific performance of agreement and perpetual injunction on the foot of an agreement of sale dated 7-1-1970 stating that plaintiff No. 1 purchased the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 4,500/- from respondent No. 1 and paid rs. 3,500/- as part-payment and agreed to pay the balance of Rs. 1,000/- at the time of registration. Ex. A-2 is the agreement of sale and Ex. A-3 is the receipt dated 7-1-70. It is also his case that he has been in possession of the suit land since 1966-67 and he was allowed to continue in possession and he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but respondent No. 1 postponed the execution of registration and thereafter respondent No. 2 obtained a registered sale deed on 18-3-1972 although he had knowledge of the agreement in favour of the appellants. Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed separate written statements and contested the suit. The agreement of sale as well as the receipt, passing of part-payment thereunder and handing over possession of the land are all denied. On the other hand it is asserted by both of them that respondent No. 2 purchased the land from her under a registered sale deed and possession and also delivered to him and respondent No. 2 is in possession of the suit land. It is asserted by her that herself and her sister Mahmudunnisa, owner of adjoining land, together executed an agreement of sale on 3-8-1971 in favour of respondent No. 2 for the suit land as well as the adjoining land of her sister and received part-payment of Rs. 1,000/- which was shared by both of them equally. While so, appellant No. 1 threatened her sister and brother-in-law and managed to take a sale deed in respect of her sister s land and the matter was placed before mediators and they decided that she should transfer the suit land to respondent No. 2 as her sister had already executed the sale deed in favour of appellant No. 1. Thus, she executed the registered sale deed on 18-3-1972 and put respondent No. 2 in possession of the suit land. On the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial court:-1. Whether the agreement of sale dated 7-1-1970 is true, valid and supported by consideration?2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as alleged in the plaint?3. Whether the 2nd defendant is a bom fide purchaser for value and without notice of the alleged agreement in favour of the plaintiff?4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance prayed for?5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction prayed for?6. To what other reliefs plaintiff is entitled?during the trial, seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of the appellants. P. W. I is appellant No. 1. P. W. 2 C. Mallaiah is examined to prove another sale deed Ex. X-1 executed by respondent No. 1. P. W. 3 T. Narsaiah is the attestor of Ex. A-1. P. W. 4 B. Sundaraiah is scribe of Exs. A-2 and A-3 and p. W. 5 A. B

Click Here to Read the rest of this document