The doctrine of laches applies on equitable considerations and whether someone's conduct suffers from such laches is to be inferred from the totality of facts and circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J. - Having lost his defence in the two Courts below, the defendant in a suit for specific performance preferred this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. questioning the correctness of the judgments of the Courts below. Respondent herein is the plaintiff.

2. There is a partnership firm called as Sri Anjaneya Enterprises consisting of three partners. All three partners are cousins to one another. One of the partners in his individual capacity with reference to his own private transaction filed O.S.No.253 of 2004 as against another partner, who is his own cousin. The suit was filed before learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet on the premise that the defendant being owner of plaint schedule property offered it for sale and the plaintiff agreed to purchase it. The agreed sale consideration was Rs.25,000/- and the entire sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant and to this effect defendant executed an agreement for sale dated 31.05.1990. The property that was agreed to be transacted was in fact under a mortgage with Andhra Bank Chilakaluripet and the loan was raised by the partnership firm referred above. In the agreement for sale it is agreed upon between parties that the defendant should discharge the mortgage debt and thereafter execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff at the expenses of plaintiff. For a long time defendant failed to discharge the debt and failed to get the property relieved of from the mortgage. In those circumstances, the plaintiff and the other partner together paid the entire debt to Andhra Bank on 30.03.2001 and got the property discharged from the mortgage. Since the defendant, who is the other partner in the firm, was not contributing his share of the money to repay the debt, it was only plaintiff and the other partner discharged the debt and to get back for recovery of share that was supposed to be contributed by the defendant, the other two partners filed O.S.No.45 of 2001 before the same Court as against the present suit defendant. Subsequent thereto, plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 26.04.2001 demanding the defendant to come forward and execute the registered sale deed. Denying the version of the plaintiff, the defendant got issued a reply notice dated 07.05.2001. In this reply notice, the defendant denied the entire transaction of agreement for sale and thereby refused to concede to the request made by the plaintiff. Thereafter, plaintiff presented his plaint on 27.04.2004 and the suit was instituted and the defendant was summoned.

3. Raising a contest defendant filed his written statement and denied the entire case set up in the plaint. He denied receipt of Rs.25,000/- towards full sale consideration and denied execution of agreement for sale. It is then stated that this defendant entrusted Rs.5,50,000/- to the plaintiff and the other partner and when he was demanding for repayment of it, they created a web of false story and filed false suit O.S.No.45 of 2001 and they also filed a criminal case in C.C.No.25 of 1999 and filed the present suit for specific performance. In his written statement defendant denied about mortgage debt with Andhra Bank. At para No.3 defendant alleged that the plaintiff as well as the defendant are chronic litigants. It is pleaded that plaintiff came to the Court with unclean hands and no one would have paid the entire sale consideration without taking possession of the property. The stamp paper on which the projected agreement for sale is prepared itself indicates the falsity of the case. For all these reasons he sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Learned trial Court took the suit for trial on the following issues:

1) Whether the suit agreement of sale dt.31.5.90 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale dt.31.5.90 as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

5. Plaintiff testified as PW.1 and one of the attestor