The plaintiffs failed to prove the validity of the sale agreement and the payment of consideration, leading to the dismissal of their appeal for specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellants challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 30.01.2004, in O.S. No. 3 of 2001 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool [for short 'the trial Court'].

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and 1st Respondent herein is the defendant in O.S. No. 3 of 2001. During the pendency of the appeal, 1st respondent died and the 2nd respondent herein was brought on record as Legal Representative of 1st respondent and subsequently, the 2nd respondent died and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein are brought on record as Legal Representatives of 2nd respondent.

3. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 09.05.2000 executed by the defendant in their favour and for delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property.

4. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

5. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No. 3 of 2001, are as under:

The defendant being the absolute owner of the suit schedule building agreed to sell the suit schedule building to the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- and executed an agreement of sale on a stamped paper, dated 09.05.2000. On the date of agreement, the defendant received a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and the plaintiffs agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- on or before 10.09.2000. On receipt of balance of the sale consideration the defendant has to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs and agreed to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule house. As agreed under the agreement of sale, the plaintiffs paid balance of sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 08.09.2000 and got endorsed the same on the reverse of stamped agreement of sale. Thus, the plaintiffs performed their part of contract. Despite of issuance of legal notice, the defendant did not execute the sale deed, but she issued a reply with false allegations and that the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit.

6. The defendant filed a written statement by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: -

The defendant being aged 80 years, married to one Challa Ramaswamy of Madras in the year 1945 and her marriage broke in a couple of years and the defendant forced to come back to Kurnool to live with her parents as dependant. She had no issues. The husband of the defendant died in the year 1968. The father of the defendant late Pelala Kondaiah brought one T. Satyanarayana from Hyderabad to help him in his business. The said Satyanarayana was an orphan and no other than the son of the elder sister of the father of the defendant. The said Satyanarayana was under the protective wing of the father of the defendant, but unfortunately, the father of the defendant died in the year 1979 and mother also died in the year 1981. The plaint schedule house was the property of the father of the defendant and on his death, his wife and defendant's mother succeeded the property. When the property as divided amongst other members of the family of late Pelala Kondaiah, the plaint schedule house also partitioned and out of compassion, the defendant was allowed to have limited interest for life. Thus, the defendant is not an absolute owner of the suit house. The defendant further contends that the agreement of sale is the outcome of the fraud played by T. Satyanarayana in connivance with the plaintiffs and therefore it is not enforceable under law. The defendant further contends that she is not the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and she is having only limited rights in view of the family settlement-cum-Memorandum of partition. Therefore, she is incompetent to sell the property and even if she agreed to sell the property, she cannot convey title to the purchasers.

7. Based on the above pleading