JUDGMENT :-These second appeals are in between the same parties and in respect of the same property. They arise out of two suits, which were clubbed and disposed of together.

2. The appellant is the owner of Plot No.38, Municipal No. 10-3-32/9/35, East Marredpally, Secunderabad; admeasuring 388.8 Sq.yards. He is the original allottee of the said plot by a Co-operative Housing Society, and purchased the same through the sale deed, dated 26-10-1977. The appellant was an employee of Geological Survey of India (GSI), and he mortgaged the plot on 28-4-1984 to the President of India, to obtain loan for construction of house. The respondent is related to the appellant. According to the appellant, a portion of the house was given, on rent, to the respondent, and the rent was paid regularly, till January 1996, and thereafter, the latter committed default. Appellant got issued a notice, dated 10-3-1997, requiring the respondent to vacate the premises.

3. A reply dated 23-3-1997 was got issued by the respondent, disputing the very ownership of the appellant, over the plot. He stated that, when he was attempting to purchase the house, the appellant volunteered to sell half portion of his property for a consideration of Rs.95,000/-. He stated that a sum of Rs.45,000/- in three parts, viz., Rs.10,000/-; Rs.28,000/-; and Rs. 7 ,000/-, was paid during 1985, and that the rest of the amount was paid in monthly installments of Rs.1,000/-, in all Rs.95,000/-. It was also his case that he spent a sum of Rs.50,000/, for repairs of the premises. Through the reply he demanded the appellant to execute a sale deed, for the property.

4. After exchange of notices, the respondent filed O.S. No.122 of 1997 in the Court of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for specific performance of alleged oral agreement of sale, and for injunction; to restrain the appellant from alienating the property. Apart from repeating the contents of his reply notice, dated 23-3-1977, the respondent specifically stated that the agreement, between himself and the appellant, was oral in nature. It was stated that against the total consideration of Rs.95,000/-, a sum of Rs.94,000/- was paid, and that he is ready and willing to pay the balance of Rs.1,000/-, as and when the appellant comes forward to execute the sale deed. A tabular statement was also furnished in it, indicating the particulars of payment. He pleaded that the cause of action arose in October, 1985, when the appellant is said to have agreed to sell the property, and received advance, and on subsequent dates, when the remaining sale consideration was received. The appellant filed O.S.No.50 of 2000 in the same Court (initially filed in a different Court and thereafter transferred), for the relief of eviction of the respondent, and for recovery of arrears of rent.

5. Except, for minor changes, the contents of the written-statement in O.S. No. 122 of 1997 were repeated in the plaint in O.S.No.50 of 2000 and vice versa.

6. The trial Court clubbed both the suits, and through common judgment dated 18-12-2000, it decreed O.S.No.122 of 1997 and dismissed O.S.No.50 of 2000. The appellant filed A.S.Nos.29 and 30 of 2001 in the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, against the judgment and decrees in O.S.Nos.122 of 1997 and 50 of 2000, respectively. The appeals were dismissed through common judgment dated 15-9-2004. Hence, these two second appeals.

7. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the so-called oral agreement of sale, pleaded by the respondent, was non-existent, and the respondent did not discharge his burden, to prove the same. He contends that the Courts below proceeded, as though mere proof of an oral agreement, that too, on the sole testimony of the respondent; is sufficient to decree the suit for specific performance, and such an approach is contrary to Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act (for short the Act’). He submits that there existed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document