R. BAYAPU REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are filed against the decree and judgment of the Principal subordinate Judge, Guntur dt 17-3-1989 passed in O. S. No. 191/1983 and o. S. NO. 9/86 respectively.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 191/83 who is the first respondent in A. S. No. 1788 of 1989 had filed the said suit against the defendants 1 to 4 in that suit contending as follows: The plaint schedule house originally belonged to the first defendant in the suit, by name, Ogirala Venkata Subbamma. She had one son, by name, Krishnamurthy who is the father of the defendants 2 and 3 in the suit and the husband of Ramathulasamma who is the mother of the defendants 2 and 3. As the said Krishnamurthy was leading a way-ward life and was not looking after the family and attending to the welfare of the children, the first defendant who was holding the property settled the said property in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 who are her grand-sons and who were minors represented by their mother Ramathulasamma as guardian by executing a registered settlement deed dt 13-12-1970 reserving life interest for herself and giving vested remainder rights in the property to the defendants 2 and 3. The property is situated at Guntur. The family of the defendants later on moved to ongole and they were residing there. As the suit house, which is an old tiled- house, was badly in need of repairs and as it was not fetching proper rents and as they were also in a position to effect the required repairs, the first defendant, who was having life interest and the defendants 2 and 3, who were having vested remainder rights represented by their mother, as guardian wanted to dispose of the property and they entered into the suit agreement of sale dated 25-6-1980 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the same for an amount of rs. 37,500/ -. An amount of Rs. 7,500/- out of sale consideration amount was paid as advance to the defendants 1 to 3 who specifically agreed to obtain the permission of the District Court, Guntur for sellingthe property on behalf of the minor defendants 2 and 3 and then execute the required registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within the specified period. Subsequently the defendants 1 to 3 filed a petition in the District Court seeking such permission and the district Court directed the mother of the defendants 2 and 3 to get herself appointed as guardian of the minors and as such they filed O. P. No. 206/80 on the file of the District Court and the mother was appointed as guardian of her two minor sons in the said petition. Subsequently the defendants failed to pursue the matter and obtain permission of the District Court for selling the suit house to the plaintiff. Later on the southern portionof the suithouse, which was in the occupation of some tenants, fell vacant and the plaintiff was permitted to take possession of the said portion of the house and he accordingly took possession of the same and continued to reside in that portion. Later on the defendants 1 to 3 became evasive and failed to obtain the required permission from the District Court and execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance of the suit agreement of sale. Instead, the defendants started issuing notices setting up the plea that the plaintiff was occupying a portion of the suit house as their tenant and demanded him to pay the rent. In spite of the notice issued by the plaintiff demanding the defendants L to 3 to execute the required registered sale deed after obtaining the permission of the district Court as agreed upon, they refused to do so. As such the suit O. S. No. 191 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 3 and also against the fourth defendant who was occupying the other portion of the suit house as tenant under the defendants 1 to 3 seeking specific performance of the suit agreement of sale from the defendants 1 to 3 and also recovery of possess

Click Here to Read the rest of this document