Point of Law: Under section 100 CPC, after the 1976 amendment, it is essential for the High Court to formulate a substantial question of law and it is not permissible to reverse the judgment of the first appellate Court without doing so

JUDGMENT :

The present Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) by the unsuccessful plaintiffs assailing the decree and judgment dated 02.12.2020 in A.S.No.43 of 2013 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Tirupati confirming the decree and judgment dated 06.02.2013 in O.S.No.1335 of 2008 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

2. The parties in this second appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit for the sake of convenience.

3. The appellant who is the plaintiff filed O.S.No.1335 of 2008 seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 30.03.1984. The specific case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to the defendant. On 30.03.1984 the defendant entered into an agreement of sale i.e. Ex.A.1 with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property for Rs.20,000/-for his family expenses. On the date of executing Ex.A.1 the defendant received the sale consideration and he delivered the physical possession of the plaint schedule property to them and promised that he will execute sale deed on sufficient valuable stamps and get it registered in their favour whenever they demand him. Since then they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with absolute rights by raising rain fed crops some times they also irrigated the crops raised in the plaint schedule property with the tank water whenever available. They also obtained the said discharged promissory notes. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that from September, 2008 they had been demanding the defendant to execute sale deed on sufficient valuable stamps in their favour and get it registered but the defendant had been postponing the same on some pretext or the other for the reasons best known to him. As such, on 31.10.2008 they got issued Ex.A-2 legal notice to the defendant calling upon him to execute sale deed. The defendant having received the said notice issued reply denying the execution of Ex.A-1. Further, the plaintiffs came to know that as the land rates have been increased abnormally the defendant is trying to create some sham and nominal documents in favour of others with regard to the plaint schedule property with an intention to defeat their rights and the defendant has no right to do so, and the defendant is trying to dispossess them and occupy the plaint schedule property, as such they filed caveat petition before the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, and III Additional District Judge’s Court, Tirupati. Since the defendant denied the execution of Ex.A-1 in favour of plaintiffs, they are constrained to file the suit.

4. The defendant filed written statement contending that he never executed any document agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs and himself and his family members are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. the alleged agreement of sale was of 24 years back, if really the alleged sale agreement is true, certainly plaintiffs would have asked him for execution of sale deed one or two years after the sale agreement, which itself shows the falsity of the case of plaintiffs. It is pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation. He further pleaded that he is having differences with the brother of plaintiffs by name M.Sankar Reddy as both of them belonged to different political groups, and in order to take revenge against him the plaintiffs filed the false suit and requested to dismiss the suit.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues:

1) Whether the agreement of sale deed dated 30.03.1984 is true and valid?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get regular sale deed in pursuance of sale agreement dated 30.03.1984 from the defendant?

(3) To what relief?

6. On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of defendant, D.Ws.1 to 4 are exam