The respondent filed O.S.No.44 of 2006 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, against the appellant, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 06.06.2006 (marked as Ex.A.1). It was pleaded that, in his capacity as a Manager of the joint family, the appellant agreed to sell Ac.1.50 cents of land in survey No.576 of Timmayapalem Village, Prakasam District, for a consideration of Rs.1,38,000/-. It was alleged that Rs.50,000/-was paid on the date of agreement and that the appellant was under obligation to execute the sale deed with the participation of his sons by receiving balance of consideration. The respondent got issued a notice dated 22.08.2006 (marked as Ex.A.2), requiring the appellant to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration. Alleging that the appellant has not come forward, the suit was filed for the relief of specific performance.

The appellant filed a written statement in the suit. He pleaded that the agreement pleaded by the respondent was a forged one. It was also pleaded that even according to the recitals in the agreement, or notice, the suit schedule land is an ancestral property and it could not have been sold, except for the family necessities. He further alleged that the recitals in the agreement, or notice, do not support the case of the respondent.

The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 30.11.2009. The appellant filed A.S.No.28 of 2010 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ongole. The appeal was dismissed on 15.07.2011. Hence, this second appeal.

Sri C.B.Rammohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have misunderstood and misinterpreted Exs.A.1 and A.2 and proceeded as though the suit schedule property is exclusively owned by the appellant and that it was sold for the family benefit. He contends that these contradictions cannot be reconciled, and that they are not in conformity with the recitals in Exs.A.1 and A.2. Learned counsel submits that the trial Court proceeded as though the sale was affected for the benefit of the family, whereas in Ex.A.1, it was clearly mentioned that the alleged sale was for the personal benefit of the appellant. He contends that the deposition of PW.1 - the respondent herein, was at variance with the contents of plaint, and contrary to the recitals in Exs.A.1 and A.2. Learned counsel further submits that whatever may have been the justification for not impleading the other co-parceners in the suit as defendants, at the initial stage, steps ought to have been taken to implead them, at least when it was brought to the notice of the respondent that the interests of the co-parceners are involved and Ex.A.1 itself provides for their joining in the completion of transaction. He has urged other contentions also.

Sri M.Venkatanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the conduct of the appellant shows that he went on changing stands, as and when suited to his convenience. He contends that at one stage, he disputed the execution of Ex.A.1, and later on, he made an attempt to fall back upon the theory of co-parcenery property, the interests of the family and non-joinder of necessary parties. Learned counsel submits that the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court were convinced that Ex.A.1 is proved and the inescapable legal consequence is that the suit be decreed. He further submits that no substantial question of law arises for consideration and that the second appeal deserves to be dismissed.

The respondent filed the suit on the basis of Ex.A.1, agreement of sale, for the relief of specific performance. The appellant, apart from denying the execution of sale, has raised several objections, as to the enforceability of the agreement. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:

i) “Whether the suit sale agreement is true, valid and binding on the defendant?