An agreement to enter into an agreement is unenforceable; specific performance requires a concluded contractual agreement.

JUDGMENT :

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree, dated 30.11.2012, in A.S.No.98 of 2006, on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 11.08.2006, in O.S.No.89 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

2. Originally, the suit in O.S.No.89 of 2001 was filed by the plaintiff for seeking the relief to direct the defendant No.1 to execute and register the necessary agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit for specific performance of agreement and granted refund of advance amount of Rs.20,000/- with proportionate costs against the defendant No.1 with subsequent interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of realization. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.89 of 2001, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed an appeal vide A.S.No.98 of 2006, on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The learned first appellate Judge allowed the appeal with costs by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant No.2 in the suit approached this Court by way of second appeal.

3. The appellant herein is the defendant No.2, the respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and the respondent No.2 is the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.89 of 2001.

4. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit O.S.No.89 of 2001.

5. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.89 of 2001, is as follows:

The defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule land and offered to sell it to the plaintiff, after negotiations the defendant No.1 agreed to sell it for a valid consideration of Rs.2,15,000/- to the plaintiff on 14.02.2001. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 executed an agreement to execute the regular agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and received Rs.20,000/- as token advance out of the sale consideration and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration on or before 14.06.2001, and to execute a regular agreement of sale. The plaintiff pleaded that one week prior to the filing of the suit, he requested the defendant No.1 to execute a regular registered agreement of sale in respect of the plaint schedule property by receiving the balance sale consideration in pursuance of the contract dated 14.02.2001, but the defendant No.1 was postponing the same as the value of the schedule property has gone up. He further pleaded that he came to know that the defendant No.1 and her husband were trying to alienate the schedule property to defendant No.2 for wrongful gain. The plaintiff pleaded that one G. Sunil, who is the husband of the defendant No.1, himself, scribed the agreement dated 14.02.2001 and the defendants in collusion with each other are trying to create documents affecting the right of the plaintiff, as such, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

6. The 1st defendant filed written statement before the trial Court denying the material averments made in the plaint. The brief averments in the written statement of 1^st defendant are as follows:

The defendant No.1 never intended to sell the schedule property to the plaintiff and had never executed any agreement dated 14.02.2001 and also did not receive any consideration. The defendant No.1 pleaded that the plain