NEELAM SANJIVA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the second defendant in O. S. No. 562 of 1977 against the judgment and decree passed therein by the I Additional Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad on 15-7-1982.

( 2 ) FACTS culminating in this appeal and necessary for its disposal briefly stated are that the defendants 1 and 2 are son and daughter respectively of Smt. Hari Pyari Bai, who was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. Hari Pyari Bai had agreed to sell the said property on 22-34975 to Chandulal for Rs. 40,000/- and received Rs. 20,000/- as advance consideration. Smt. Hari pyari Bai passed away pn 9-44977 before she could execute any sale deed in favour of Chandulal after receiving the balance of sale consideration. After her demise, Chandulal demanded the first defendant to refund the money paid by him under the agreement. As the first defendant had no money, he agreed to sell the suit house for Rs. 42,000/- to the plaintiff and also received Rs. 20,000/- as part of the consideration to pay Rs. 20,000/- to Chandulal and executed the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff, which is the basis for the present suit. The first defendant agreed to obtain relevant clearance certificates from different authorities for completion of the contract of sale. In the meantime, the second defendant informed the plaintiff that her mother late Hari Pyari Bai had executed a will bequeathing the suitproperty to her and that the plaintiff should not go ahead with the agreement of sale. The first defendant failed to execute and register the sale deed as agreed upon by the parties in spite of exchange of notices between them. Under the above circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against the first defendant only.

( 3 ) THE first defendant resisted the suit denying all the plaint allegations and further pleaded that the plaintiff played fraud on him by getting some forms and the stamp papers signed by him, representing that the papers were required to be submitted to the Central Bank, Bank Street, Hyderabad to receive the amount from the joint account of the first defendant and his mother, late hari Pyari Bai. He also pleaded that to his knowledge, no will was executed by his mother in favour of his sister, Savitri Bai. On the basis of above pleadings, as many as ten issues were framed.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, Smt. Savitri Bai, sister of the first defendant, Brij Mohan, got impleaded as second defendant in the suit. She filed written statement opposing the suit, pleading inter alia, that the suit was collusive one, and that her mother executed a will dated 19-4-1976 bequeathing the suit house to her. She thereby became sole and absolute owner of the house. She, having learnt about the collusive agreement of sale between the plaintiff and her brother, first defendant, informed them not to go ahead with their deal in view of the fact that she succeeded to the suit house, being the sole beneficiary of the will executed by her mother.

( 5 ) AFTER filing of written statement by the second defendant, the following two additional issues were framed:"1. Whether D-l has right, title and interest in the suit property; if so, whether D-l is competent to enter into agreement of sale with the plaintiff? 2. Whether the suit agreement of sale i s binding and enforceable against d-2?

( 6 ) PARTIES went to trial on the above issues. The plaintiff examined himself as p. W. I and also examined P. Ws. 2 to 7 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-26 and X-1 to x-12 (b) on his behalf. The first defendant as D. W. I, second defendant as D. W. 2 and D. W3 were examined and Exs. B-1 to B-19 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

( 7 ) AFTER the arguments, the learned trial Judge recast the ten issues framed earlier into four issues as follows:"1. Whether the suit agreement of sale by the first defendant in favour of plaintiff dated 9-6-1977 is true and valid; If so, whether it isobtained by fraud? 2. Whet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document