JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 27.08.2005 in O.S.No.32 of 2000 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa (for short "the Trial Court"), the appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 preferred this appeal.

2. For convenience's sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the O.S.

3. It is a suit filed for specific performance directing the defendants to receive the balance of sale consideration of Rs.75,000/- and execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff's case is that the schedule property belongs to the defendants. On 30.01.1997, the defendants approached the plaintiff and agreed to sell him the schedule property for Rs.5,75,000/-. They received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff towards the part of the balance sale consideration and agreed to receive Rs.75,000/- on or before 30.12.1997 and execute the registered sale deed with the expenses of the plaintiff. The defendants executed the sale agreement on the same day, agreeing to the terms and conditions. The plaintiff is ready and willing to fulfil his obligations under the agreement and pay the remaining balance. The defendants are postponing the same and promising to execute the sale deed in a short period. The plaintiff learned that the defendants are attempting to evade the sale agreement to gain unlawfully as the value of the property increased.

5. (i) The defendants filed their written statement, denying the existence of the sale agreement dt.30.01.1997 and contending that the plaintiff fabricated it for unlawful gain. The 1st defendant and his brother B.Chinna Venkata Narayana intended to construct a multi-storied shopping complex on the property and adjacent site. Due to misunderstandings, the 1st defendant took over his brother's site on 04.07.1995 and paid an advance of Rs.3,90,000/- under an agreement to purchase the site. On 05.11.1994, the 1st defendant obtained the plan approval and issued brochures for booking shop rooms in the proposed complex. Sri Kamisetty Subbarao agreed to take four rooms and made an advance payment of Rs.50,000/- while other rooms were also booked. When 1st defendant approached K.Subbarao, he consented, provided the name to be changed to Kamisetty Complex, with Kamisetty Krishnamoorthy and M.V.N.Prabhu as partners. The said attempt failed as a dispute arose between them. To proceed with construction, Sri Kamisetty Subba Rao agreed to invest, and as a security, the defendants deposited their title deeds with him. This deposit was documented in a letter of deposit dt.01.06.1996, confirmed by the defendants in an agreement dt.19.06.1996. The defendants owed Rs.3,76,815/- to K. Subbarao and his business establishments.

(ii) Furthermore, the defendants entered a partnership agreement 23.12.1995 with eight individuals named 'Ganesh Building and Developers'. Disputes arose among them. Upon representation made by one Balaiah and the plaintiff, these defendants were asked to sign the blank stamp papers which were later used to create a suit agreement. The defendants learned that the plaintiff and the eight individuals conspired to acquire the entire property for themselves as they anticipate significant profits of approximately Rs.1,00,00,000/- upon project completion.

6. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed relevant issues. Before the Trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 got examined and marked Ex.A.1. On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 got examined and marked Exs.B.1 to B.17.

7. After considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court decreed the suit with costs, directing the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within three months and to deliver possession.

8. I have heard Sri G.Rama Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 and Sri S. Kaleemulla, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

9. The learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants argues that the trial court faile