Judgement Key Points

JUDGMENT:- The plaintiff in O.S.No.6 of 1986, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kadiri is the appellant. He filed the suit against the respondent, for the relief of specific performance of agreement, dated 5.7.1985, in relation to 0-75 cents of land, along with 1/4th share in a well. It was alleged that as against the total consideration of Rs.20,000/-, a sum of Rs.19,000/- was paid, on the date of agreement, and the balance of Rs.1,000/- was to be paid by 15.3.1986. After informing the respondent about his willingness to pay the balance, the appellant is said to have gone to the office of Sub-Registrar on 18.2.1986, and since the respondent did not turn up, he got issued a notice, and thereafter, filed this suit. The possession of the property is said to have been delivered, on the date of agreement itself.

2. The respondent filed a written statement, opposing the suit. Respondent pleaded that his eldest brother is the father of the appellant, and that the latter used to take signatures of the respondent and other brothers, for one purpose, or the other. He denied the execution of agreement of sale, as well as delivery of possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, through its judgment dated 30.7.1992. The appellant filed A.S.No.56 of 1992, in the Court of Additional District Judge, Anantapur. The appeal was also dismissed on 25.7.1996. Hence, this second appeal.

3. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that several substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this case, particularly, in the context of discharge of burden, once it was impliedly admitted by the respondent that he signed an agreement of sale, marked as Ex.A- 2. Learned counsel contends that the courts below have committed error in law, by not applying the relevant principles of appreciation of evidence, and denied the relief, even though the agreement of sale was proved, as required in law.

4. Sri B.Rajendra, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration, and that the concurrent findings of the courts below do not warrant interference. He submits that the stamp paper, on which Ex.A-2 was written, was purchased in the name of father of the appellant, who is none other than the eldest brother of the respondent, and that circumstance is sufficient to doubt the genuineness of the document.

5. The trial court framed two issues in the suit, one touching upon the enforceability of agreement of sale, dated 5.7.1985, and the other, about the entitlement of the appellant for the relief of perpetual injunction. The appellant deposed as PW-1, and on his behalf, PWs-2 to 4 were also examined. The notes of partition, between the respondent and his brothers, including the father of the appellant, was marked as Ex.A-1, and the suit agreement of sale was marked as Ex.A-2. Ex.A-3 is an office copy of the notice and Ex.A-4 is said to be promissory note, under which the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from one Sri Parvathaiah. The respondent deposed as DW-1 and no documentary evidence was adduced on his behalf.

6. The judgment of the trial court, dismissing the suit, was affirmed by the lower appellate court.

7. Had the respondent denied the execution of Ex.A-2 flatly, the nature of examination of the matter, and the principles that applied to the controversy, would have been different. By stating that he used to sign on blank papers, on the direction of the father of the appellant, the respondent had tacitly admitted his signature on Ex.A-2. Therefore, the burden shifts to him, to explain the circumstances, under which he put his signature on the document, and as to how it is not enforceable in law.

8. On his part, the appellant narrated the events, that led to the execution of Ex.A-1, by deposing as PW.1. PWs.2 and 4 are the witnesses to Ex.A-2. Out of them, PW-4 is none other than the brother of the respondent. PW-3 is a witness to Ex.A-1, un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document