IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court ruled that the agreement for sale was not proved and lacked consideration, leading to the dismissal of the specific performance suit.

JUDGMENT :

V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.

1. Defendant in O.S.No.226 of 2008 preferred this appeal under section 96 CPC impugning the judgment dated 02.07.2014 of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. O.S.No.226 of 2008 is a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale with an alternative relief of refund of advance sale consideration along with interest and for costs and such other reliefs.

2. The appellant has been owning 2,222 square yards of vacant site in Chinagantyada Village. Her husband is Sri P. Satyanarayana Reddy. The respondent/ plaintiff Sri P. Govinda Reddy is the younger brother to Sri P. Satyanarayana Reddy and thus is brother-in-law for the appellant/ defendant. The controversy revolves around 1,111 Square Yards of the vacant site along with an office room situated therein alleging that his sister-in-law executed an agreement for sale dated 16.10.2003 in his favour and thereafter failed to execute registered sale deed, the respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit. Defendant filed a written statement and resisted the claim raising various contentions. Learned trial court settled the following issues for trial: -

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract of sale or in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 6,73,666/- with 6% interest per annum towards interest?

2. To what relief?

Plaintiff testified as PW.1. One of the attestors to the agreement for sale testified as PW.2. The scribe of the document testified as PW.3. The agreement for sale is Ex.A1. Earlier to the institution of the suit, plaintiff got issued notice dated 01.09.2008 as per Ex.A2 and it came returned unserved with a postal endorsement that the “addressee/ appellant refused to receive it” as per Ex.A3. As against the above evidence, defendant/ appellant testified as DW.1 and her husband testified as DW.2. No documents were exhibited for defendant.

3. On considering the entire evidence on record and the contentions raised on both sides, the learned trial court recorded its findings that Ex.A1 was executed by defendant/ appellant in favour of plaintiff/ respondent and the vendor received the entire sale consideration under Ex.A1. It further held that even on assessment of equities, it found that the primary relief for specific performance is deserved. Accordingly, it decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff in the following terms: -

“In the result, plaintiff is entitled for a decree for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 16.10.2003. It is shown that the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and it is also shown the plaintiff is ready and willing to come for registration. The defendant is ordered to execute a regular sale deed within 45 days of passing of decree upon the plaintiff duly informing the defendant the suitable date for getting the sale registered. The suit decreed with costs.”

4. Aggrieved by it, the defendant filed the present appeal. Sri P.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for appellant and Sri P. Veera Raghavaiah and Sri K. Srinivas, the learned counsel for respondent submitted their respective arguments.

5. The principal contentions of appellant are that the respondent/ plaintiff was a minor and had no source of income and had never paid the alleged sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and that there have been disputes between the respondent/ plaintiff and his father on one side and the husband of the appellant on the other side and that the appellant had other assets and thriving business and there was no need for her to sell the property covered by Ex.A1. The learned counsel further contended that by the averments in the written statement and by her evidence as DW.1, the appellant denied execution of Ex.A1 agreement for sale and denied signature on it attributed to her and that she has always been subscribing her signature in English language whereas the impugned Ex.A1 agreement for sale contains signature in Telugu langu