A second appeal under Section 100 of CPC must arise from a substantial question of law; otherwise, it may be dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 08.04.2024 in A.S.No.100 of 2020 on the file of learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, setting aside the Judgment and decree dated 18.08.2020 in O.S.No.715 of 2014 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.715 of 2014 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.715 of 2014 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, with a prayer for specific performance of agreement of sale directing the defendant to execute a sale deed with respect to the schedule property by receiving balance sale consideration after deducting advance amount received by him and if the defendant failed to do so, the Court may be pleased to execute the same on behalf of the defendant or grant the alternative relief of return of advance amount of Rs.50,000/- together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the agreement till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the plaintiff in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, allowed the first appeal with costs by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant/appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.715 of 2014, is as follows:

The defendant offered to sell the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff came forward to purchase the same. After due negotiations, the defendant executed an agreement of sale on 08.01.2013 in favour of the plaintiff. The terms of sale agreement reduced into writing on a stamp paper. As per the conditions, the rate was fixed at Rs.6 lakhs as bill contract and out of the total sale consideration, the defendant received Rs.50,000/- towards advance. Thereafter, the defendant failed to receive the balance of sale consideration and execute registered sale deed and he has been postponing the same on some pretext or other. The plaintiff got issued a lawyer notice dated 08.09.2014, to which, the defendant gave a reply notice dated 26.09.2014 with false allegations. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

7. The defendant filed written statement denying the contents of plaint averments and further contended as follows:

The defendant was not acquainted with the plaintiff until the plaintiff issued a legal notice claiming that the defendant purportedly sought to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. The defendant never sought to sell the suit schedule property to anybody. In fact, he got right over the suit schedule property through the gift deed executed by his father dated 13.10.2009 and since then he was embroiled in a lengthy legal battle on behalf of M/s Srinivas Housing Scheme to which his father was the Managing partner. The suit schedule property was allotted to the father of the defendant through the Lok Adalat Award in the year 2008. His father executed a gift deed dated 13.10.2009 and plaintiff might have known that the father of the defendant got the suit schedule property bearing H.No.6-343 after a compromise between the parties in O.S.No.723 of 2008 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge. The defendant was not even aware of the existence of the alleged agreement of sale dated 08.01.2013 till receipt of legal notice issued by the plaintiff. The defendant duly replied through his counsel on 26.09.2