IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Second Appeal – Jurisdiction of High Court in second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law.
(2) Written Statement – Mere failure or neglect of a defendant, to file written statement controverting pleaded facts in the plaint, in all cases, may not entitle him to a judgment in favour of plaintiff unless by adducing evidence he proves his case / claim.

JUDGMENT

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 27.08.2018 in A.S.No.7 of 2012, on the file of learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, setting aside the Judgment and decree, dated 16.11.2011 in O.S.No. 357 of 2004, on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff, the 1st respondent herein is the 4th defendant and the respondents 2 to 4 herein are the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.357 of 2004, on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.357 of 2004, on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, with a prayer for specific performance of an agreement of sale directing the defendants to execute a regular registered sale deed pursuant to agreement of sale dated 9.8.2004 by receiving balance sale consideration in favour of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents, followers etc., from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and also declaring the pattadar passbook and title deed issued under the A.P. Record of rights in Lands Act, 1971 in favour of 4th defendant as null and void and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, decreed the suit. Felt aggrieved of the same, the 4th defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No.7 of 2012, on the file of learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. The learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, allowed the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff in the suit 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.357 of 2004, is as follows:

The defendants 1 to 3 are closely interrelated as 1st defendant is the father of 2nd defendant and husband of 3rd defendant and defendants 1 and 2 are the employees under the 4th defendant. The plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties of defendants 1 and 2 as it was purchased by one Sreenviasulu Chetty, who is the father of 1" defendant under a registered sale deed dated 15.12.1958. Ever since the date of purchase, the predecessor of defendants 1 and 2 has been in possession and enjoyment and later the defendants 1 and 2 came into possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff owns Mango Grove on the west of the plaint schedule property and the defendants 1 and 2 are his neighbouring landholders and they have proposed to sell the plaint schedule property and approached the plaintiff with an offer to sale and negotiations were made and settled on 09.08.2004 for total sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-, out of sale consideration, the plaintiff paid Rs.50,000/- as advance sale amount and the balance sale consideration shall be payable within 6 months i.e on or before 08.02.2005 and get regular sale deed and entered into an agreement on 09.08.2004 and defendants 1 and 2 had delivered the possession of plaint schedule property to the plaintiff as a matter of part performance of agreement of sale. The plaintiff after taking possession of the plaint schedule property, spent huge amounts for leveling the lands by erecting fencing and granite stone pillars around the plaint schedule property. None others have any access to reach the plaint schedule property except the plaintiff. The 4th defendant is distant relative of the plaintiff who is running Sri Vidyanikethan Engineering College and the daughter of the plaintiff joined in their college and doing 2nd year Engineering course and the 4th defendant Institute collected excessive amount of fees,