ORDER:

C.R.P.No.509 of 2023 is filed against the Order dated

09.01.2023 in I.A.No.305 of 2022 in O.S.No.333 of 2022, passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda.

2. C.R.P.No.2322 of 2022 is filed against the Order dated 20.07.2022 in I.A.No.253 of 2022 in O.S.No.333 of 2022, passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda.

3. Petitioner herein has filed an application vide I.A.No.305 of 2022 in O.S.No.333 of 2022, against the respondents herein under Order 7 rule 11 R/w. Section 151 of C.P.C, for rejection of plaint. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, she has preferred C.R.P.No.2322 of 2022.

4. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that no cause of action arose in the suit for specific performance of Agreement of Sale in respect of the petitioner, as she was not the signatory of the Agreement of Sale. The alleged agreement of sale dated 26.06.2021 cannot be construed as agreement of sale and it does not fulfill any ingredients of the nature of agreement of sale. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court dated 09.01.2023.

5. Initially, respondents No.1 to 4 filed a suit vide O.S.No.333 of 2022, against the petitioner and respondents No.5 and 6 herein, for specific performance of agreement of sale and for perpetual injunction. It is stated that petitioners and respondents belongs to same village. Petitioner herein is the defendant No.3 in the suit. She has filed the said I.A.No.305 of 2022, stating that she was the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land measuring an extent of Acs.4-13 gts in Sy.No.55, situated at Keshamnenipalli Village, Nalgonda District. Respondents No.1 to 4 have filed the suit stating that her husband offered to sell away the land measuring an extent of Acs.4-00 gts out of Acs.4-13 gts at Rs.70,000/- per acre and they paid the total sale consideration of Rs.2,80,000/- to her husband and the same was reduced in writing. On the same day, her husband delivered the possession and also agreed to execute the registered sale deed. Respondents No.5 and 6 have executed a document dated 26.06.2021, agreeing to sell the land, as such they filed the suit for specific performance.

Perusal of the contents of the said document dated 26.06.2021, shows that it is non-enforceable under any law. Though, she was the owner of the suit schedule property, she was not a party or signatory to the alleged document, as such suit for specific performance was not maintainable. Even in the document dated 26.06.2021, the details of the scheduled properties were not mentioned. The suit was filed in the year 2022 and respondents also stated that originally agreement was entered in the year 2010. Without seeking the specific relief against the said agreement, seeking specific performance on a subsequent document dated 26.06.2021 was not maintainable. The document dated 26.06.2021, cannot be enforceable under Section 13, 14 and 17 of the Specific Relief Act and was liable to be rejected.

6. Admittedly, O.S.No.333 of 2022 was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale and for perpetual injunction. The husband of the petitioner herein was the owner and possessor of the land near Kotha Baavi Polam in the year 2010. He offered to sell the said land for family necessities and accordingly respondents No.1 to 4 approached him and purchased the same on payment of total sale consideration of Rs.2,80,000/-. It was reduced in writing and on the same day possession was also delivered to them and promised to register the sale deed as and when demanded by them. However, the husband of the petitioner died in the year 2015. On 15.05.2021 i.e., after 11 years respondents No.1 to 4 asked the petitioner and respondents No.5 and 6 to execute the registered sale deed in their favour stating that the original agreement of sale executed by the husband of the petitioner was m