THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the judgment and decree dated

07.02.2008 passed in O.S.No.1637 of 2006 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.

Nagar, the present Appeal Suit is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff, a real estate company, filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement of sale dated 30.06.2005, wherein the defendants (three brothers) agreed to sell five acres of land for ₹49 lakhs. The plaintiff made an advance payment of ₹10 lakhs, with the remaining amount to be paid in four installments before 30.06.2006. Over time, the plaintiff paid ₹44,64,000, leaving a balance of ₹4,38,000. While the defendants executed registered sale deeds for four acres, Defendant No.1 refused to execute the sale deed for the remaining one acre and later issued a legal notice on 02.07.2006, canceling the agreement, citing the plaintiff’s alleged default. The defendants claimed that there was an understanding to restrict the sale to four acres and that the plaintiff was compensated with 16 guntas of land in another survey number. However, the court found no evidence supporting this claim and determined that the plaintiff had fulfilled its obligations under the contract and was always ready and willing to complete the transaction.

3. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed three issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A30 are marked. DWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

4. After considering the evidence, the trial Court, vide order dated 07.02.2008, decreed the suit holding that the defendant could not unilaterally cancel the agreement and ordered the execution of the sale deed for the remaining one acre upon payment of the balance amount of ₹4,38,000. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the present appeal suit is filed.

5. Heard Sri B. Suresh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Sri N.A. Jairaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court is contrary to law and facts of the case. The trial Court erred in decreeing the suit in favor of the respondent/plaintiff, despite the appellants/defendants having specifically pleaded and proved that they had executed and registered sale deeds in respect of their agricultural lands, as agreed upon in the agreement of sale dated 30.06.2005. He further submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the evidence on record, including Ex.A2, Ex.A23, and Ex.A24 to Ex.A28, which clearly established that the appellants/defendants have performed their part of the contract.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the trial Court misdirected itself by wrongly fixing the burden of proof on the appellants/defendants and ignoring the pleadings and evidence on record. The trial Court also failed to frame a specific issue regarding the oral settlement arrived at between the parties, which resulted in the appellants/defendants executing and registering a sale deed in respect of their own land, thereby abandoning the claim of the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale. He further contended that the suit laid by the respondent/plaintiff is bad in law due to misjoinder of parties and the trial court's failure to address and decide the rights of the appellants/defendants. The trial Court also erred in decreeing the suit, despite the respondent/plaintiff being indefinite in seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2008 by allowing this appeal suit.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent filed counter denying the allegations leveled against the appellants stating that the application of the appellants seeking leave to urge