IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court emphasized the necessity of natural justice, ruling that an ex-parte decree without considering the defendants' pleadings is erroneous and must be set aside.

JUDGMENT :

(G. Radha Rani, J.) :

This appeal is filed by the appellants - defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2017 passed in O.S.No.246 of 2006 on the file of the XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge - cum - XVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at Malkajgiri.

2. The respondent is the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.246 of 2006 submitting that defendant No.1 approached him with a proposal to sell his agricultural land for his family necessities to an extent of Ac.1-27 guntas in Survey No.92 situated at Godumakunta Village, Keesara Mandal, Rangareddy District for a total sale consideration of Rs.13,56,750/-. The plaintiff agreed and paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as a token advance on 18.09.2005 and paid Rs.3.00 lakhs on 06.10.2005 and got executed an agreement of sale on the said date. A receipt was passed by the defendant. As per the terms of the agreement, the transaction has to be completed within six (06) months by paying the balance amount of Rs.10,31,750/-. The plaintiff on 23.01.2006 approached the defendant and expressed his readiness and willingness to get the sale deed registered in his favor by paying the balance sale consideration. The defendant though entered into the agreement of sale and agreed to execute and register the sale deed, he never turned up nor gave any specific date for the execution of the document. As such, the plaintiff was forced to issue a legal notice on 29.01.2006 expressing his readiness and willingness to get the sale deed executed by paying the balance sale consideration. But there was no response from the defendant. The plaintiff infact entered into an agreement of sale with two other brothers of the defendant by name Yadagiri and Balaiah under separate agreements. They were having pattas in their names in respect of suit schedule survey No.92 to an extent of Ac.1-27 guntas each and the defendant was having Ac.1-28 guntas in Survey No.92 in the passbook. The plaintiff approached all the executants as they were residing in the same village and in side-by-side houses. All the brothers even though agreed to execute and register the sale deed, but not gave any specific time. After entering into agreement of sale, the plaintiff called for objections from the public intimating about entering into agreement to purchase the suit schedule property from three persons. The same was published in Eenadu and Vaartha Newspapers on 20.01.2006. A reply to the publication was received through advocate representing Nacharam Naveen, N.Bhavani, N.Swetha and N.Sandeep. It was mentioned that 3 and 4 therein were minors represented by N.Padma, their mother. But the father's name of the said persons was not disclosed, for which a letter was addressed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff asking for particulars about the objectors. But the notice sent through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due was returned as unclaimed. As such, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement.

4. A written statement was filed by the defendant denying the petition averments. The defendant contended that he never agreed to sell the property in favor of the plaintiff and had not executed any agreement of sale nor received any amount or legal notice. He was not aware of issuing public notice by the plaintiff calling for objections from third parties. The cause of action was created only for the purpose of instituting the suit.

4.1. The defendant further submitted that his daughter by name Bhavani filed partition suit in respect of the suit property and some other properties before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge vide O.S.No.124 of 2006 stating that the suit property and other properties were ancestral properties. As per the revenue records, the properties were acquired by the defendant through his forefathers. Basing on the revenue records, the defendant's daughter filed a partition suit and obtained a decree in their favor. The defendant was no more th