M. H. S. ANSARI, J.

( 1 ) THE above Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the defendants, aggrieved against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, in a. S. No. 1567 of 1985 dated 14-8-1995, reversing the judgment and decree dated 31-12-1984 in O. S. No. 67 of 1974 on the file of the Sub-Judge at Tanuku and decreeing the suit for specific performance filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein - Plaintiff.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. l herein filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 1-5-1974 (Ex. A-1 ). The said agreement (Ex. A-1) is executed by defendant No. l who is the kartha of the joint family consisting of himself and his sons - defendants 2 to 8. Defendant No. 2 was the only major son and has executed Ex. A-1 along withhis father. The property to be conveyed- by the said agreement is an agricultural land of an extent of Ac. 2. 27 cts (9156 sq. metres) situated in Khandavali village, Tanuku Taluk, West Godavari district. The total sale consideration stipulated under Ex. A-1 is Rs. 20,500/- and an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was paid immediately at the time of the agreement by way of earnest money. It was stipulated that a further amount of rs. 8,000/- is to be paid by the purchaser on or before 15-6-1974 and the remaining balance of Rs. 10,500/- was to be paid by 15-7-1974 on which day the sale deed was to be executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff - purchaser and at her expense. The purchaser-plaintiff paid Rs. 14,000/- to the defendants, firstly Rs. 2,000/- and thereafter Rs. 4,000/-each On three occasions i. e. , on 20-6-1974, 17-7-1974 and 18-7-1974 as is evidenced by Ex. A-1 and the endorsement made thereon vide Exs. A-3, A-4 and A-5. The agreement ex. A-1 recites that the debts were incurred for family necessity by defendant no. 1 and the payments sought for under the agreement were for discharging the debts of the family. Defendant No. 9 (Respondent No. 2 herein) was the tenant of the suit schedule property and as per directions of defendants 1 and 2, he handed over the property to the plaintiff in view of the agreement to sell Ex. A-1 and executed one year Kadapa (lease) in favour of the purchaser - plaintiff under Ex. A-2 and thereby agreed to give 32 bags of paddy by way of rent to the purchaser-plaintiff. The plaintiff thus claimed to have been put in possession of the suit schedule property by attornment of tenancy. The defendants 1 and 2 tried to dispose of the property to some other persons and a notice was issued by the plaintiff on 29-8-1974 (Ex. B-1) calling upon the defendants to execute a registered sale deed by accepting remaining consideration. Reply notice was issued by the defendants and thereafter the suit was filed. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the signatures of D-1 and D-2 were obtained upon blank papers by PW-3, by misrepresentation and that the plaintiff is not entitled for grant of the relief of specific performance but decreed the suit against D-1 and D-2 for refund of the sum of Rs. 14,000/- paid pursuant to Ex. A-1 with interest at 12% per annum

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED against the said judgment and decree, the unsuccessful plaintiff preferred an appeal which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement. It is against this judgment that the defendants 1 to 8 have filed the above Letters patent Appeal.

( 4 ) SRI Ramakrishna Rao, learned Counsel for the appellants, assailing the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge, contended that the suit agreement Ex. A-1 is vitiated by fraud and that there was no legal necessity to sell the joint family property for discharging the debts and that the plaintiff is not entitled for a decree for specific performance of the agreement as the interest of the minor coparceners are affected and that the proposed sale under ex. A-1 is for inadequate considerat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document