MUMMIDI REDDI PAPANNAGARI YELLA REDDY Vs. SALLA SUBBI REDDY
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Mummidi Reddi Papannagari Yella Reddy
Salla Subbi Reddy
Click here to view full judgement.
Chandra Reddy, J. -
(1.) THE fourth Defendant has filed this appeal against the decree and judgment of the District Court, Cuddappah confirming those of the District Munsif's Court of Proddatur.
(2.) THE suit, which has given rise to this second appeal was instituted for the specific performance of an oral agreement to sell a plot of land of an extent of 4 acres entered into between Defendants 1 to 3, and the Plaintiff on 29 -11 -1948, and also for an injunction restraining the fourth Defendant from interfering with the Plaintiff's possession. The case for the Plaintiff is that the suit land originally belonged to his family, that, in or about the year 1935, it was sold to his family by Defendants 1 to 3 and that despite this, he remained in possession of the land as a tenant till 29 -11 -1948 when the agreement for sale of the land was entered into between the parties, notwithstanding that the lease in his favour had expired two years prior thereto. On account of enmity between the Plaintiff and the appellant, the latter obtained a sale -deed on 30 -12 -1948 offering a higher price and with the knowledge of the agreement in favour of the Plaintiff. The suit was contested, inter alia, on grounds that the agreement pleaded was untrue, that, in any event, the fourth Defendant could not be affected by the agreement as he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, and that lastly Section 48, Registration Act, saved the transaction in favour of the fourth Defendant. The trial Court awarded the claim of the Plaintiff holding that the oral agreement set up by the Plaintiff was true, that the fourth Defendant had notice of the agreement and that Section 48, Registration Act, had no application. to the case. On appeal, the learned District Judge of Cuddappah agreed with the findings of the trial Court and confirmed the decree of the learned District Munsif. It is that decision, that is now under appeal.
(3.) IN this appeal, the learned Advocate -General contests the propriety of the decree mainly on two grounds, namely, the finding as regards notice is in conflict with the evidence on record, and secondly the learned District Judge has failed to advert to the contention of the appellant, based on Section 48, Registration Act. The learned Advocate -General did not canvass the finding regarding the truth of the oral agreement and rightly in my opinion, as there is ample material in support of that finding. No doubt the judgment of the District Judge is very unsatisfactory, but the matter has been exhaustively dealt with by the District Munsif and I have also gone through the record and satisfied myself that the finding is fully justified by the evidence on record.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.