COMMON JUDGMENT :-Second Appeal No.192 of 1999 is filed by the first defendant being aggrieved by the reversing decree and judgment made in A.S. No.13 of 1995 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki. Likewise, Second Appeal No.210 of 1999 is preferred as against the selfsame decree and judgment by defendants 2 and 3 and hence both these matters are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The first respondent in these second appeals Ravipati Subba Rao filed the suit O.S. No.l99 of 1984 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Addanki, praying for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 18.6.1981. The learned District Munsif, on the strength of respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, DWs.1 to 3, marked Exs.A.1 to A.4, EX.B.1 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 18.6.1981 and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the said Ravipati Subba Rao carried the matter by way of appeal A.S. No.13 of 1995 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki and the appellate Court having framed the point for consideration at Para 11, recorded reasons in detail and came to the conclusion that the decree and judgment made by the Court of first instance cannot be sustained and accordingly the dismissal of the suit was set aside and the relief of specific performance was granted. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeals are preferred.

3. The substantial questions of law raised in S.A. No.192 of 1999 are as hereunder :

1. Whether the agreement dated 18.6.1981 is enforceable when the plaintiff did not pay the balance of consideration within the time prescribed in the agreement which would disclose that time was the essence of contract especially when the suit for specific performance was filed after a period of two years after execution of the sale deed in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 and the same is within the knowledge of the plaintiff ?

2. Whether the plaintiff discharged his burden to estab1ish that time was not essence of the contract inspite of the specific recitals in the agreement, that the entire transaction had to be completed within a period of two months and whether the conduct of the plaintiff in filing a suit after period of two years for specific performance of the suit agreement disentitles him to seek specific performance of the agreement of sa1e and whether the findings of the lower appellate Court in reversing the findings of the tria1 Court are perverse ?

Likewise, the substantia1 questions of law raised in SA No.210 of 1999 read as hereunder:

1. When the property agreed to be sold under EX.A.1 is unidentifiable and when EX.A.I. is not enforceable at law, is the learned Appellate Court justified in ordering specific performance of EX.A.1 agreement ?

2. In the absence of any specific finding that EX.A.1 is true, valid and binding on the defendants 2 and 3, is the learned Appellate Court justified in ordering specific performance of EX.A.1 agreement?

3. Whether the judgment of the learned Appellate Court is vitiated by surmises and conjectures and non-application of mind and non-consideration of the material facts as shown in the grounds of appeal and misreading of evidence and assumption of facts which are not in existence?

4. Whether the finding of the learned Appellate Court that time is not the essence of the contract is vitiated for the reasons mentioned in ground Nos.11 to 14?

5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Court is not justified in holding that defendants 2 and 3 are not bona fide purchasers for value without notice of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale?

6. Whether the finding of the Appellate Court that defendants 2 and 3 are not bona fide purchasers for value without notice of EX.A.1 agreement of sale is vitiated as shown in ground Nos.15 and 16?

7. Whether the plaintiff is not entitl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document