The main legal point established in the judgment is that an inadequately stamped and unregistered agreement for sale is admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance.

JUDGMENT:

Three defendants in the suit seek intervention of this Court by way of second appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. as against concurrent judgments of two Courts below. Respondent herein is the sole plaintiff in the suit. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement for sale. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.19 of 2007. After due trial, by a judgment dated 21.10.2011 learned Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

2. Defendants preferred first appeal in A.S.No.29 of 2012. After due hearing, learned II Additional District Judge, Hindupur by a judgment dated 22.06.2017 dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.

3. The present second appeal is filed by the defendants questioning the correctness of the judgment of the first appellate Court. Learned counsel on both sides submitted arguments before admission. To consider these submissions, one shall notice the legal proceedings that took place before the Courts below.

4. Various extents of agricultural land spread in four survey numbers totaling Ac.10.35 cents situate in Chilamathur Village in Puleru Village of Gorantla Mandal of Anantapur District are the immovable properties that are subject matters of litigation in the suit. Plaintiff pleaded that defendant Nos.1 to 3 executed an agreement for sale on 01.12.2006 agreeing to sell these properties to the plaintiff for Rs.3,05,000/- and they received Rs.50,000/- towards part of the sale consideration. The balance sale consideration of Rs.2,55,000/- was to be paid by the plaintiff on or before 03.03.2007. In the event of failure on part of the plaintiff in paying the balance sale consideration, it was agreed between the parties that the agreement should stand cancelled and the advance sale consideration paid stand forfeited. Thereafter, plaintiff called upon the defendants to receive balance sale consideration and execute registered sale deed, but the defendants were postponing it for one or the other reason. In those circumstances, well before the outer date set the said agreement, plaintiff got issued a notice dated 13.02.2007 calling upon the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration as the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and invited them to execute registered sale deed in his favour. There was no response. Plaintiff got issued another notice on 26.02.2007 and another notice on 27.02.2007. Despite all this, defendants did not come forward. Pleading that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he is prepared to pay the balance sale consideration and obtain a registered sale deed, he laid the suit.

5. In contest, 1st defendant filed a written statement and the remaining defendants filed a memo adopting it. They denied the plaint averments and stated that they never executed the agreement for sale alleged in the plaint and they had no need to sell the property and that it is a fabricated document. That they live at Anantapur and taking advantage of it, the plaintiff and his followers fabricated the agreement for sale. It is further stated that notice dated 13.02.2007 was received by the defendants, but they did not give any reply since the agreement for sale alleged is a fabricated document. That the alleged agreement for sale is not valid and does not bind on the defendants and it is not stamped properly. In these circumstances, there is no breach of contract on part of the defendants. For these reasons, they sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. It seems during the trial, one of the valiant contests raised by the defendants was that defendants are not the sole owners of the property and it is a joint family property. From the records placed before this Court, it is not very clear as to whether this aspect of the matter was pleaded in the written statement or not? However, both the Courts below addressed that contention and recorded their finding. On the above rival pleadings,