The High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact by the first appellate court unless they are perverse or based on no evidence; the plaintiff failed to prove execution of the agreement and the suit was barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 25.04.2014, in A.S.No.05 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District Judge at Srikakulam, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 21.02.2010, in O.S.No.87 of 2001, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge Court, Pathapatnam.

2. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.87 of 2001, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge Court, Pathapatnam, with a prayer for a decree directing the defendants to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or her nominee in respect of the suit property after receiving the balance of sale consideration of Rs.80,000/- within the time fixed by the Court, on a duly stamped paper supplied by the plaintiff in the manner and form required under law, and in case if the defendants fail to execute the above sale deed, the Court may itself execute the sale deed for and on behalf of the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property at the costs of the plaintiff and to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property after evicting the defendants therefrom, and for the costs of the suit.

3. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Pathapatnam, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful defendant No.1 in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned Principal District Judge at Srikakulam, allowed the appeal by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff in O.S.No.87 of 2001 approached this Court by way of second appeal.

4. The appellant herein is the plaintiff, and the respondents herein are the defendants.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit O.S.No.87 of 2001 before the trial Court.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.87 of 2001, is as follows:

The defendant is the owner of the plaint schedule property, and he intends to sell the same to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same from the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, and the defendant executed an agreement of sale dated 07.11.1998 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for Rs.1,00,000/-. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant received a sum of Rs.20,000/- as part-payment of the consideration and agreed to execute a sale deed after receiving the balance of consideration of Rs.80,000/- in favour of the plaintiff within six (06) months from the date of execution of the sale agreement and to put the plaintiff in possession of the land. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant is postponing the execution of the sale deed though the plaintiff is ready to pay the balance of consideration of an amount of Rs.80,000/- and the defendant is trying to sell away the suit schedule property to somebody else; as such, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

7. The defendant No.2 remained set ex-parte before the trial Court. The case of defendant No.1, as per the written statement filed by defendant No.1, is as follows:

The plaintiff approached the defendant in the year 1996 and requested him to sell the schedule property to her; as a matter of fact, he was not interested to sell the schedule property, and the plaintiff and her husband convinced the defendant to sell the sch