Existence of a concluded oral agreement for sale, as evidenced by the preparation of a regular registered sale deed and the agreed sale consideration, is crucial in a specific performance case. Defendants have the burden to prove misrepresentation and breach of contract.

JUDGMENT :

Defendants in the suit filed this appeal against appellate Court’s judgment under section 100 CPC. Respondent in this appeal was the plaintiff before learned trial Court.

2. Seeking relief of specific performance of an oral agreement for sale plaintiff laid O.S.No.129 of 2005 before learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. Defendants resisted the suit. After due trial the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved of it, defendants preferred their first appeal in A.S.No.3 of 2008 before learned VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada. The winning plaintiff preferred cross objections questioning the failure of the trial court in omitting to grant costs of the suit. After due hearing, by a judgment dated 24.01.2013, the learned VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada agreed with the findings of the trial court on all aspects and dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants and also dismissed the cross objections filed by the plaintiff. It is against that judgment of the first appellate Court, the defendants have come up with this Second Appeal. On 25.07.2014, an Hon’ble judge of this Court admitted the Second Appeal on the following substantial questions of law :

1. Whether the trial Court decreed the suit without there being any acceptance on behalf of the appellants with regard to the sale consideration as the appellants are disputing with regard to the passing of sale consideration concerned and they are not interested in alienating the property as per the offer made by the respondent? Whether the trial Court can direct the appellants herein to alienate the property?

2. Whether the Courts below have adjudicated the suit basing on the principle of consensus-ad-idiom?

3.Whether the trial Court and the lower appellate Court are justified in decreeing the suit without there being any document with regard to the market value of the suit schedule property?

4. Whether the decrees and judgments of the Courts below are sustainable under law when they were made without following of the principles of the contract such as the offer and acceptance between the parties?

3. Learned counsel for appellants as well as learned counsel for respondent submitted oral arguments and cited legal authorities in support of their respective contentions.

4. The dispute raised before this Court has a few curious aspects. On certain facts relevant to the dispute, there has been no controversy between the parties. Plaintiff in the suit is Sri. V. Sandeep Raju. His grandfather is Sri V. Subba Raju. An extent of 568.33 Sq.Yards of site in Survey No.30/2 in Ramanayya peta of Kakinada Rural Mandal of the then East Godavari District is a property owned by Sri Chodisetti Putrayya/defendant No.1. The said Ch.Putrayya has four children and they are shown as defendant Nos.2 to 5 respectively. By the time the suit was laid in the year 2005 defendant Nos.4 and 5 were minors and during the course of pendency of litigation before the trial Court, they attained majority and therefore on 14.12.2006 in I.A.No.1543 of 2006, the same was declared and the guardian was discharged. Till then these minor children were represented by their father/natural guardian/Sri Ch. Putrayya. It was alleged that the grand father of the plaintiff negotiated with defendant No.1 with reference to purchase and sale of the plaint schedule property and on 23.05.2004, the deal was settled between them whereunder defendant No.1 agreed to sell the property in favour of plaintiff and that defendant Nos.2 to 5, though were not holding any rights over the plaint schedule property, it was at the request of Sri Subba Raju/plaintiff, defendant No.1 agreed to have all his children become parties to the regular registered sale deed. It was agreed between the parties that the entire sale consideration should be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of sale deed. The registration date was fixed on 02.06.2004. On these aspects, there has been no controversy betwee