Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 382 (AP)

Pallamkuppam Srinivasulu v. Siddilugari Janitha

2024-03-20

R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2024
JUDGMENT : R Raghunandan Rao, J. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.50 of 2010 before the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 03.08.2006. It was the contention of the respondent that there was an agreement, between the respondent and the appellant, for purchase of the suit schedule property, belonging to the appellant, for a consideration of Rs. 2, 90, 000/- and the terms and conditions of the said sale were reduced to writing and signed by the parties on 03.08.2006. The respondent also contended that an advance amount of Rs. 2, 87, 000/- was already paid and only a nominal amount of Rs. 3, 000/- remained to be paid. As the appellant was not accepting the remaining money, the respondent is said have got a legal notice, dated 25.11.2009, issued to the appellant for calling upon the appellant to come forward to receive the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 3000/- and to execute necessary documents of alienation. Reply to this legal notice was given by the appellant, by another legal notice dated 27.12.2009, raising various defences, which are disputed by the respondent. 2. The respondent then filed O.S.No.50 of 2010 before the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi for specific performance of the said agreement. 3. The appellant took the defence that the he had not agreed for selling the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. It was the further case of the appellant that he had obtained a loan of about Rs. 3, 20, 000/- from the respondent in the year 2005 for which, he had given various documents including the blank signed stamps papers and a sale letter relating to the suit schedule property. The appellant contended that he had repaid the aforesaid sum of Rs. 3, 20, 000/- after which, the respondent had returned the sale letter but did not return some of the blank signed stamp papers etc., on account of the differences between the respondent and the appellant in relation to the interest payable on the loan amount. The appellant also took the stand that one Sri. M. Babu Reddy had approached the appellant showing an agreement of sale between the respondent and Sri. M. Babu Reddy dated 16.06.2007 for sale of the suit schedule property and had enquired whether the property been sold to the respondent. The appellant also took the stand that one Sri. M. Babu Reddy had approached the appellant showing an agreement of sale between the respondent and Sri. M. Babu Reddy dated 16.06.2007 for sale of the suit schedule property and had enquired whether the property been sold to the respondent. The appellant is said to have set out the facts relating to the sale letter and had also shown the sale letter to Sri. M. Babu Reddy. 4. The Trial Court, after conduct of a Trial and examination of the witnesses on the side of the respondent and appellant, had accepted the version of the respondent that there had been a agreement of sale for sale of the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs. 2, 90, 000/-. The trial court rejected the defence set out by the appellant that there were certain prior transactions on account of which the blank signed papers had been given by the appellant and the said blank signed papers are misused by the respondent. 5. The Trial Court having accepted the version of the respondent had allowed the suit on 12.02.2015. Aggrieved by the Decree/Judgment, the appellant had filed A.S.No.55 of 2015 before the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The appellate Court, after hearing both sides affirmed the decision of the Trial Court by holding that the version put forth by the appellant cannot be accepted as the evidence adduced during the Trial did not inspire any confidence in the case of the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed on 21.03.2022. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has approached this Court by way of the present Second Appeal. 7. Heard Sri. K. Mohan Rami Reddy and Sri. P. Madhu Sudhan, learned counsel for the respondent. 8. Both the Courts below held that the agreement of sale dated 03.08.2006 has been proved by the respondent. This finding was arrived on the ground that the appellant did not dispute the signatures on the agreement of sale which has been marked as Exhibit A-1 and had contended that the blank stamp papers signed by him had been used for this purpose. This finding was arrived on the ground that the appellant did not dispute the signatures on the agreement of sale which has been marked as Exhibit A-1 and had contended that the blank stamp papers signed by him had been used for this purpose. On the question of whether such signatures had been obtained on blank stamps papers, as contended by the appellant, or whether the contention of the appellant is right, both the Courts held that the version of the appellant that there had been a prior transaction between the appellant and the respondent on account of which the respondent had come into possession of blank signed papers which were subsequently misused was not acceptable. 9. Having gone through the Judgments and after hearing the submissions on both sides, I do not find any reasons to differ with the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. 10. This scope of a Second Appeal is restricted to the questions of substantial law which arise out of the appeal. It is true that even perverse findings of fact are questions of law which can be the basis of interference in a Second Appeal. However, in this case I don't find any perversity in the findings of the Trial Court or the Appellate Court. 11. In the circumstances, there are no substantial questions of law which require to be answered by this Court and in an any event there is no ground for interference. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.