( 1 ) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 25 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate judge, Tanuku, is the appellant. He filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of an extent of 500 sq. yards from out of 900 sq. yards in Sajjapuram (Tanuku ). The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant mortgaged 900 sq. yards of land in favour of Bhagavathula Ramamurthy sastri for a sum of Rs. 8,000/- under Ex. A. 5. She created a second mortgage on the said land for a sum of Rs. 600/-under Ex. A. 6 dated 1-10-1963. As she was unable to discharge the said debts, she agreed to sell 500 sq. yards out of the said land to the plaintiff under Ex A. 7, the agreement which was executed on 22-3-1975. Time for execution of the sale deed was fixed as three months. The plaintiff has undertaken to discharge the mortgages, which he did and called upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. There has been some dispute with regard to the demarcation of the land which is to be conveyed under the agreement. The parties exchanged notices. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract of sale.

( 2 ) THE defendant did not dispute the execution of the agreement. The dispute was only with regard to the demarcation of the land. According to the defendant, the site agreed to be sold under Ex. A. 7, has to be measured after leaving passage on the north of the coconut trees existing in the soutkern portion of the site in question, which is necessary for the vendor to reach her house which is situated on the western side of the site. On the eastern side there is a road and on the northern side, there is land of one Krishnavenamma. As the parties were at variance in regard to leaving passage on the northern side of the coconut trees and also some land on the eastern side of the well, the sale deed could not be executed. The defendant also pleaded that there has been a mistake in the identity of the land and, therefore, the suit may be dismissed.

( 3 ) ON these pleadings, the trial court framed necessary issues and decreed the suit for specific performance of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff, granting three months time to execute the sale deed. Further, the trial court specified the boundaries of the land for execution of the sale deed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, in so far as they relate to specifying of the boundaries, the plaintiff filed this appeal.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court erred in prescribing the boundaries different from those mentioned in the agreement and this amounts to creating a new contract between the parties which is not permissible.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the decree granted by the trial court is in accordance with Ex. A. 7 and the variation, if any, is in conformity with Section 18 of the Specific Relief act.

( 6 ) THE short question that arises for consideration is whether the decree under appeal is not in accordance with Ex. A. 7; if so, whether the variation is covered by Section 18 of the Specific Relief Act.

( 7 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial court erred in specifying the boundaries of the site in respect of which the decree has been passed different from those contained in Ex. A. 7, the agreement for sale of the land. There is no controversy with regard to the execution of the agreement, Ex. A, 7. The land agreed to be sold under ex. A. 7 is described as follows : "boundaries for 500 sq. yards of site in R. S. No. 10th Ward of sajjapuram village, Tanuku Panchayat area, Tanuku taluk, Tanuku sub-Division, W. G. Dt.

( 8 ) THE trial court granted the decree defining the boundaries thus: eastern boundary from the road upto the one yard away from the well on the west; on the north: site of Mandapaka Krishnavenamma; south : leaving one yard to the north of coconut trees the entire area.

( 9 ) BY comparing the boundaries in Ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document