J. ESWARA PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge allowing the appeal and remanding the suit for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit laid for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 26-12-1977, executed by the first respondent-first defendant, Huzurabad Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, whereby the first respondent agreed to execute a sale deed conveying the plaint a schedule vacant site owned by it and measuring 165 x 12 situated at Jammigunta Road, with the boundaries mentioned in the schedule, for a consideration of Rs. 90,000/ -. The 2nd defendant in the suit was the President of the first respondent first defendant Society. The first respondent filed a written statement on 10-8-1981 admitted that the 2nd defendant was authorised to sell its properties, particularly, the suit site by the resolution of the general body of the society dated 27-12-1974 and the managing committee of the society by the resolution dated 25-2-1975 had also authorised the President to sell the plaint schedule property. It is further stated that the 2nd defendant executed the agreement of sale dated 26-12-1977 agreeing to sell the suit site to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 90,000. 00 and that the Society is ready to perform its part of the contract, based on the admissions contained in the written statements, the learned Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar, decreed the suit on 1-9-1981 observing that the averments made in the plaint are deemed to have been proved. The first defendant filed in appeal against the decree and judgment which came up before the learned single Judge. The plaintiff took an objection with regard to the maintainability of the appeal relying on Section 96 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned single Judge held that no inference can be drawn to the effect that the first respondent has ever agreed to suffer a decree and held that the appeal is maintainable. The learned Judge allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh disposal.

( 3 ) SRI Pratap Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appeal before the learned single Judge was not maintainable, as the decree under appeal amounted to a consent decree and that no appeal lies under Section 96 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code. He further contended that the suit agreement was admitted by the defendants in the written statement and there was no dispute with regard to the identity of the site agreed to be sold and the amount of consideration, and the trial court was justified in passing the judgment under order 15, Rule I, C. P. C. His further contention was that when the parties were not at issue on any question of law or of fact, the court was justified in pronouncing the judgment in accordance with Order 15, Rule 1, C. P. C. , and that there was no justification for remanding-the matter, as so other questions were raised in the written statement and there was no need to decide upon other matters, which were not pleaded.

( 4 ) SRI P. V. Narayanarao, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 strenuously contended that fraud was played on the Court and the trial court should not have decreed the suit without framing necessary issues and without the parties adducing evidence. He contended that there was no consent decree within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 96, C. P. C. and the appeal was maintainable. He argued that the suit agreement was not executed by the person authorised on behalf of the society and that the agreement could not be specifically enforced. He contends that the suit notice itself was addressed to a wrong person, namely the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, whereas it is required to be issued to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 126 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act. He argued that the averment contained in the plaint s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document