MUTHABATHULA ARJAYYA Vs. RAMBALA VENKATA SURYA GOPALA KRISHANAMURTHY
LAWS(APH)-1971-4-11
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 14,1971

MUTHABATHULA ARJAYYA Appellant
VERSUS
RAMBALA VENKATA SURYA GOPALA KRISHANAMURTHY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Vaidya, J. - (1.) The plaintiff-appellant in this Second Appeal filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the 2nd respondent, Ist defendant in the suit, on 24/10/1960 after obtaining full consideration for the sale from the plaintiff. The appellant was also put in possession of the suit property. It is agreed between the parties that the 2nd respondent will execute a sale deed within a period of two years. The case of the appellant is that the period of two years was stipulated in the agreement of sale as that was thought to be sufficient period in which the 2nd respondent would obtain a Ryotwari patta under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act , hereinafter referred to as "the Inams Abolition Act . The 2nd respondent obtained the patta ; but instead of executing a sale deed in favour of the appellant , executed it in favour of the Ist respondent , the 2nd defendant in the suit. The appellant further averred that the Ist respondent purchased the suit property from the 2nd respondent having notice of the agreement of sale in favour of the appellant. The 2nd respondent in his written statement stated that the suit agreement of sale is not true, valid and binding on him. he alleged that he appellant had originally obtained a urfructuary lease for a period of five years from his mother for a sum of Rs. 350.00 and in pursuance of it got into possession of the suit property. He denied that the appellant ever paid him an amount of Rs. 600.00 . He further contended that the plaintiff was aware that the suit land was a service inam and that any alienation of such a land would be invalid. Having come into possession of the suit property in the capacity of a usufactuary lessee, the appellant managed to obtain from him the alleged suit agreement which is only a nominal document. He averred that the Ist defendant is bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the agreement of sale in favour of the appellant. The Ist respondent also filed a separate written statement contending that he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the agreement of sale. He also contended that he was informed by the 2nd respondent that the appellant was his tenant under a usufructuary lease which had expired with the year 1962-63 and that he had given up possession also. He contended that the suit agreement is invalid as it is opposed to Section 5 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (Madras Act III of 1895) , hereinafter referred to as Act III of 1895.
(2.) On these pleadings, the trial Court framed the necessary issues and decreed the plaintiff suit for specific performance holding that the suit agreement is true and supported by consideration, and that the Ist respondent had notice of the suit agreement before the purchased the property from also held that the suit agreement is not hit by the provisions of Act III of 1895 .
(3.) Aggrieved by this decision of the trial Court, the Ist respondent filed an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Amalpuram. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the suit agreement is true, valid and supported by consideration , and that the Ist respondent had notice of the said agreement before he purchased the same from the 2nd respondent. He allowed the appeal on the ground that the suit agreement is hit by the provisions of Section 5 of Act III of 1895. Hence the plaintiff-appellant filed this Second Appeal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.