SHORT EPISODE:

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.45 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram preferred the present appeal. The defendant in the said suit is the respondent in the present appeal. Appellant as plaintiff instituted the said suit praying for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 25-01-1987, and also the alternative relief of refund of Rs.40,700/- with interest and for other appropriate reliefs. The relief portion had been amended by an order, dated 03-11-1993, made in I.A.No.607 of 1993, whereunder, specifically, relief had been prayed for directing the defendant to accept the balance of sale consideration of Rs.9300/- and register the sale deed and to deliver possession and in the event of failure on the part of the defendant to comply with such direction, the plaintiff to get the same registered through due course of law and to recover possession.

2. The learned Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, D.Ws.1 to 5, and marked Exs.A1 to A10 and also Exs.C1 to C10 and after recording reasons came to the conclusion that the appellant-plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for and accordingly dismissed the suit directing the parties to bear their own costs. Hence, the present appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

CONTENTIONS OF SRI RAMANA RAO:

3. Sri Ramanarao, learned counsel representing the appellant-plaintiff, had taken this Court through the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the trial Court and would maintain that the trial Court totally erred in dismissing the suit despite the oral and documentary evidence available on record which would clearly establish the execution of the agreement of sale in question by the defendant. The learned counsel also would maintain that the payment endorsements also had been duly proved in the light of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as well. Learned counsel also specifically pointed out that the very fact that Exs.A9 and 10 also had been delivered would go to show that Ex.A6 is a genuine transaction. Further, the learned counsel specifically pointed out that the witnesses were not cross-examined by the counsel representing the respondent-defendant before the trial Court and hence, in view of the fact that the evidence deposed by those witnesses in chief-examination had been left unchallenged and could not be discredited in any way whatsoever. Automatically the appellant as plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs prayed for and even the matter negating the reliefs cannot be sustained.

4. Learned counsel in all fairness would maintain that it is no doubt true that the parties are close relatives but by that itself the very transaction cannot be viewed with suspicion even if it is a case of either plea of fraud or a case of plea of misrepresentation. The burden is on the respondent-defendant to establish the same and in the absence of any acceptable evidence in this direction in the light of the clear evidence available relating to execution of Ex.A6, the appellant-plaintiff is bound to succeed. Learned counsel also pointed out to the inconsistent and conflicting stands taken by the respondent as defendant. He also pointed out to the opinion of the expert-Ex.C1 and further pointed out that D.W.1 herself admitted the signature in Ex.A6. He also made certain submissions not relevant to D.W.2 and further pointed out the signatures of D.W.2-husband of the defendant on Exs.A7 and 8 and this would also probablize the stand taken by P.W.1 in relation to Ex.A6. Ultimately, the learned counsel would conclude that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the decree and judgment of the trial Court to be set aside and the relief of specific performance to be granted in favour of the appellant as plaintiff.

CONTENSIONS OF SRI S.SUBBA REDDY:

5. Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel representing the r