D. J. JAGANNADHA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of the suit o. S. No. 43 of 1968 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ananthapur. The first plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 8-4-1965 and during the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died and the present appellants were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 4. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the sole respondent-defendant died and respondents 2 and 3 S. Indira and G. Jayalakshmi were brought on record as L. Rs. of the first respondent. Theaverments in the plaint and the written statement are extracted in extenso in the judgment of the trial Court. It would be unnecessary to produce the elaborate pleadings. It would be sufficient for the purpose of this appeal if a gist of the plaint and the written statement are set out.

( 2 ) THE plaint schedule lands belonged to the defendant. They were originally inam lands and after the abolition of inams, ryotwari patta was granted to the defendant. The lands were always being leased out to tenants, as the defendant was residing at different places due to his service as a government official. On 8-4-1965, the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the plaint schedule lands for a proper and valid consideration of Rs. 20,500/ -. The defendant received an advance of rs. 1,000/- on the same day and executed the agreement. As per the terms of the agreement, the balance of consideration has to be paid and the diffendant was obliged to execute a registered sale deed. The first plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Several requests were made by the plaintiff to the defendant to carry out his part of the contract. The defendant was postponing matters. Then a registered notice was issued on 24-8-1965 informing the defendant that plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he is ready to take a sale deed paying the balance of consideration. The defendant was requested to fix up a convenient date for execution of the sale deed. The defendant gave a reply notice dated 5- 9-1965 with false and untenable allegations. Along with the reply notice, he sent a crossed Demand Draft for Rs. 1,000/ -. This draft was again returned to the defendant and a reply was also sent stating that the plaintiff would be enforcing his rights in a Court of law if a proper conveyance deed is not executed within a reasonable time. Subsequently also plaintiff requested the defendant to perform his part of the contract. He denied to do it. Hence the suit. The plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his par t of the contract. The defendant may be directed to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance of consideration of Rs. 19,500/ -. He may also be directed to do all act s necessary to put the plaintiff in possession of the plaint schedule properties.

( 3 ) THE defendant filed a written statement raising the pleas that the defendant is neither the owner nor is he in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. Items 2 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties, were originally inam lands. The defendant never applied for the grant of a patta after the inams were abolished. He was not aware of the proceedings under the inams Abolition Act. He never applied for grant of the ryotwari patta. The defendant was never in possession of the plaint schedule properties and the allegation that the defendant was leasing out the plaint schedule properties to tenants is false. The first plaintiff is fully aware that the defendant had neither title nor possession nor enjoyment of the suit property at any time. The property originally belonged to the family of the defendant. The defendant s father sold the properties during his life time to the family of Muthuluru Kondappa, obanna and Pullappa of Raketla. They and their successors in interest have been in possession and enjoyment o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document