IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Mere sale agreement does not create any right or interest in property.
(2) Right and remedy for enforcement are mutually exclusive jurisprudential concepts.
(3) A person who invokes protection of Section 53-A of T.P. Act should be ready to perform his part of contract.

JUDGMENT

The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the appellant/defendant challenging the decree and Judgment dated 02.12.2015 in O.S. No.12 of 2009 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru (for short, ‘the trial court’). Respondent is the plaintiff in the suit, who filed the suit in O.S.No.12 of 2009 seeking recovery of possession of suit schedule properties with mesne profits based on the title and earlier agreement of sale.

2. It is expedient to refer to the parties as they are initially arrayed in the suit to mitigate any potential confusion and have a clearer comprehension of the case.

3. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:—

(a) The plaintiff filed the suit as an indigent person. The extent of the plaint schedule property is Ac.6.19 cents. The defendant, a rich and influential land owner, has land adjacent to the plaint schedule property. The suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff, her two daughters and her only son as per the registered settlement deed dated 09.04.1978 (Doc.No.712/1978) executed by the plaintiff’s mother (Bhogavalli Satyavathi). The defendant took unfair advantage of the plaintiff’s helplessness, strained relations with her parents by making false representations, obtained a sale agreement dated 14.08.1980 for an alleged consideration of Rs.25,698/- in his favour purporting to be executed by the plaintiff as mother-guardian and her three minor children. The plaintiff has no right to sell it at all. She had not the benefit of any independent advice before entering into such sale agreement vitally affecting the rights and title of the minors. She had been a victim of pressure tactics. The plaintiff’s mother distributed the A, B, and C schedule lands linked to the settlement deed, allotting Ac.2.10 cents of A schedule land to the plaintiff’s son, Velaga Ramkumar, Ac.2.10 cents of Bschedule land to the plaintiff’s elder daughter, Velaga Venkata Ramalakshmi, and Ac.2.04½ cents of C-schedule land to the plaintiff’s younger daughter, Velaga Madhavi Latha.

(b) The defendant has failed to adhere to the terms of the sale agreement dated 14.08.1980, thereby breaching the agreement. The said agreement is considered null and void. The defendant’s possession is merely permissive and cannot adversely affect the rights of the plaintiff and her children.

(c) In the past, the defendant filed a suit (O.S.No.112 of 1984) against the plaintiff, her children, her husband, and the Branch Manager of Indian Bank, Rajahmundry, based on the alleged sale agreement dated 14.08.1980. Following a contested trial, the court dismissed the suit on 21.06.1993, holding that the defendant to file a suit for specific performance. Subsequently, the defendant appealed (A.S.No.14 of 1993) at the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Tadepalligudem, but the appeal was also dismissed on 22.07.1996. Despite these legal proceedings, the defendant continues to possess and enjoy the property without pursuing specific performance or obtaining a registered sale deed, which is unjust, inequitable, and contrary to principles of justice and fair play.

4. (a) The defendant filed a written statement, refuted the plaint averments and asserting that the plaintiff held a life estate while her children had vested remainder rights in the properties as per the settlement deed dated 09.04.1978. According to the defendant, the plaintiff, during her life estate, agreed to sell the property to the defendant on 14.08.1980 at a rate of Rs.4,150/- per acre, totaling Rs.25,688/-. An initial payment of Rs.2,000/- was made, and the balance was to be paid within 3 months, with court permission required for the sale deed execution. The defendant also alleged that the plaintiff had already received several payments, including Rs.2,000/- on 22.12.1980, Rs.4,000/- on 24.04.1981, Rs.5,000/- on 15.