IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that ancestral property cannot be sold without consent from all coparceners, rendering the sale agreement unenforceable.

JUDGMENT :

Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.

Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Wasim Ahmed Khan, learned counsel on record for the appellant in both the Appeals; Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri D.Madhava Rao, learned counsel on record for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in CCCA.No.41 of 2014 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in CCCA No.131 of 2014; and Sri V.Hariharan, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in CCCA No.41 of 2014 and respondent No.4 in CCCA No.131 of 2014.

2. The suits-O.S.Nos.50 and 67 of 2002 were heard together and by common judgment, dated 11.02.2014, the trial Court partly decreed the suit in O.S.No.50 of 2002 and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.67 of 2002. Against the judgment in O.S.No.50 of 2002, CCCA.No.131 of 2014 is filed by the 2nd defendant therein. Against the judgment in O.S.No.67 of 2002, CCCA.No.41 of 2014 is filed by the plaintiff therein.

3. As the dispute relates to the same property, these two Appeals are clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by common judgment.

CCCA No.41 of 2014:

4. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.67 of 2002 filed for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 17.04.2000, by directing defendant No.1 to execute registered sale deed in his favour in respect of the property bearing No.10-2-292 in Plot No.179 (Part-B), admeasuring 300 square yards, situated at West Marredpally, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit schedule property’) or in alternative, to direct the defendants to return the entire sale consideration of Rs.21,03,500/- along with damages and interest from the date of agreement of sale till the date of realization and to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession or dispossessing the plaintiff from the schedule property.

5. It was averred that the plaintiff entered into agreement of sale dated 17.04.2000 with defendant No.1 to purchase the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.21,00,000/- and by the date of agreement, he paid an amount of Rs.4,25,000/- as advance and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.16,75,000/- at the time of registration. It was averred that by the date of agreement of sale, the plaintiff was already in possession of the schedule property by running business in the name and style of ‘Raj Engineers and Raj marketing’ in partnership with his friend and that the plaintiff paid a total sum of Rs.21,03,500/- to defendant No.1 on various occasions under receipts and the same were endorsed by defendant No.1 himself and even on the overleaf of the original agreement of sale on 28.07.2001. It was further averred that the said transactions were in the knowledge of defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 is the wife and defendant No.3 is the son of defendant No.1.

6. It was averred that though the plaintiff has paid more than the agreed sale consideration and performed his part of contract, defendant No.1 was deliberately avoiding and delaying the execution of registered sale deed in his favour in spite of repeated requests and demands on the pretext that he has borrowed amount from Andhra Bank and that original documents are lying with the Bank and he will execute the registered sale deed after getting the documents from the Bank.

7. It was further averred that all of a sudden, on behalf of defendant No.3, defendant No.2, in collusion with defendant No.1, gave a paper publication in Deccan Chronicle English Daily newspaper on 29.04.2002, by falsely contending that defendant No.3 has got a share in the suit schedule property as the said property is an ancestral property; that the plaintiff got issued reply notice to the claim of defendant No.3 contending that the schedule property is the absolute property of defendant No.1 and that defendant No.1 and his mother, by name Bededy Leela Bai, were the joint owners of 600 square yards of property and