1

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement

of sale dated 27-04-2013 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff; a)
directing the defendant to receive the balance of sale consideration and
execute a registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of plaint
schedule land and if he failed to do so the court may execute a sale deed and
registered the same in favour of plaintiff b) if for any reason the Court feels
that specific performance could not be granted in favour of plaintiff
alternatively to order refund of advance amount of Rs. 3, 00, 000/-received
by him with subsequent interest from the date of suit; c) to create a charge
over the schedule mentioned property; d) for costs of the suit.

2. The averments of plaint in succinct are:

The defendant is absolute owner of the suit schedule property which is

self acquired property of the defendant got by him under a registered sale
deed dated : 11-05-2012 purchased by him from Sisti Nagaratnam and he
sold suit schedule property to the plaintiff for valuable consideration of Rs.
3,50,000/-and received an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs and executed agreement
of sale and delivered possession of both the plots in the schedule. At the
time of execution of agreement of sale the defendant has handed over link
documents and possession was delivered to plaintiff. Subsequent to the
execution of the agreement of sale, the plaintiff several times demanded the
defendant to receive the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/-and
execute registered sale deed in his favour but the same was postponed by
the defendant in one pretext or other and failed to execute registered sale
deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is also agreed by the plaintiff to bear stamp
and registration expenses. Seeing the attitude of the defendant plaintiff got
issued legal notice on 06-11-2013 for which defendant has given reply
notice with false allegations. Through the reply notice this plaintiff came to
know that the defendant is not ready and willing to execute registered ale
deed in his favour as there is no other alternative he filed present suit for
specific performance of contract, hence the suit.

3. Defendant filed written statement denying allegation of the plaintiff

and submitted that he never sold suit schedule property to the plaintiff at
 2

any point of time and he never received any advance amount as alleged by
the plaintiff on 27-03-2014. This defendant has got no knowledge about the
terms and conditions of the sale agreement dated: 27-04-2013. The plaintiff
created the said agreement of sale dated: 27-04-2013 for wrongful gain and
to make claim against the properties of the defendant. The plaintiff has no
capacity to give such huge amount of Rs. 3 lakhs to the defendant. The
plaintiff's husband namely Grandhi Nageswararao filed insolvency petition
in Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajam. The said petition is pending before the
Hon'ble Court. The plaintiff and his men who acted as attestors on the
alleged agreement of sale with the assistance of scribe have to forged the
alleged agreement of sale dated : 27-04-2013 for wrongful gain. The
defendant doing business in Rajam, he got enemies in Rajam due to
assistance of enemies of the defendant, the plaintiff filed this suit against
the defendant to grab the plaint schedule property. On receiving legal
notice from the plaintiff this defendant got issued reply notice with the
suitable reply on 23-11-2013 there is no vendor and vendee relationship
between them. Thereby agreement of sale is at all binding on the defendant
and there is no need to execute any sale deed infavour of the plaintiff over
the schedule property and the boundaries are incorrect, hence prays for
dismissal of the suit.

4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were settled for
trial.
1. Whether the agreement of sale dated : 27-04-2013 is true, valid and supported
by advance amount of consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-and the same is binding on
the defendant?

2. Whether the boundaries of the suit schedule property are incorrect?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled decree for specific performance of contract for
the suit schedule property ?

4. To what relief ?

5. To prove the case of plaintiff, Pw.1 to Pw.3 were examined and Ex. A.1
to A.5 were marked on her behalf. On behalf of defendant, the
 3

defendant himself was examined as DW.1 and Ex.B.1 and Ex. B.2
were marked on his behalf.

6. Arguments of both sides heard.

7. Issue Nos. 1 and 3 :-

It is the case of the plaintiff that this defendant is absolute owner of
the suit schedule property which was purchased by him through registered
sale deed on 11-05-2012, thereafter he alienated schedule property to the
plaintiff for valid consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- and executed agreement
of sale in his favour on 27-04-2013 and received advance of Rs. 3 lakhs,
agreed to receive remaining balance amount at the time of registration.
After execution this plaintiff made several requests and demands for
execution of registered sale deed but defendant postponed the same in one
pretext or other. On the other hand it was contended by the defendant that
he do not have any knowledge about the agreement of sale, he never
executed any sale agreement for suit schedule property to the plaintiff at
any point of time by taking assistance of enemies of defendant the plaintiff
has created Ex. A.1 for want of wrongful gain.

8. On considering both rival contentions, as the suit was filed by the

plaintiff for specific performance of agreement of sale, the entire onus is on
plaintiff to prove execution of Ex. A.1 agreement of sale by defendant in her
favour and passing of consideration and terms agreed by them as per Ex.
A.1. It is onus on plaintiff to prove every aspect of transaction including
execution, passing of consideration and terms of contract. The same
principle was laid down by the Hon'ble High court in decision reported
2015 (4) ALT 633 in between Kalvakolanu Tarakamma (died)
L.Rs vs. Pulichintala Narsimha Reddy where in it was held by
Hon'ble High court that"mere admissions of signature is no proof of
execution of the document or its contents. In a suit for specific
performance, plaintiff must prove all aspects as to its execution, payment of
consideration, delivery of possession and terms of contract as stated by
him. Further In para no. 20, it was held that in such cases, the burden of
proof heavily rests upon the plaintiff to sustain the transaction said to have
 4

been executed by such person. Duty is also cast upon person trying to seek
benefit out of such document to establish that it was not merely a physical
act but also mental act on the part of expectants to enter into transaction
with regard to the property which stood in her name. In nutshell, the
burden is upon plaintiff to prove that the document Ex. A1 alleged to have
been executed by defendant was voluntary act performed freely after
understanding its consequences. Merely because signature is appended on
document, it cannot be concluded that the executants had knowledge about
its contents unless it is established by surrounding facts and circumstances
and by the other evidence either direct or circumstantial".

9. On considering above decision let us see how far plaintiff able to prove
execution of Ex A1 by defendant and passing of consideration, delivery of
possession and the presence of the defendant on the date of transaction. It
is the case of the plaintiff as per the averments and as well as evidence of
him that the suit schedule property is absolute property of the defendant
which was purchased through registered sale deed on 11-05-2012 and he
alienated suit schedule property to this plainaff through agreement of sale
on 27-04-2013 after receipt of Rs. 3 lakhs as advance amount agreeing to
receive remaining balance of Rs. 50,000/-at the time of registration.

10. To prove the same, the plaintiff himself examined as Pw.1 and
deposed before the Court that Ex. A.1 transaction was taken place at his
house in the presence of Pw. 2 who is attestor and Pw. 3 who is scribe and
this defendant has received advance amount of Rs. 3 lakhs from him on
demand and execution of agreement of sale agreeing to receive balance sale
consideration at the time of registration and he is ready and willing to
execute registered sale deed as and when this plaintiff paid Rs,. 50, 000/-to
him. To prove his contention, the plaintiff also examined Pw. 2 who is
attestor of the document who deposed that he was present at the time of
execution of Ex. A. 1 by the defendant, in their presence only the defendant
received advance amount of Rs. 3 lakhs from the plaintiff and executed Ex.
A. 1 in his favour. Plaintiff also examined Pw. 3 who is scribe of the
document who deposed that he went to the house of the plaintiff at his
 5

request and scribed Ex. A.1 agreement of sale basing on the link document
purchased by the defendant in his presence only the defendant has received
advance amount of Rs. 3 lakhs agreeing to execute registered sale deed as
and when this plaintiff paid Rs. 50, 000/-balance sale consideration either
in the name of the plaintiff or in other person directed by the plaintiff.
11. On contra to the evidence of Pw's 1 to 3 it is the case of the defendant
he never executed any agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. It is
fabricated document created by the plaintiff with his henchmen attestor
and scribe. To prove the same, the defendant himself examined as Dw. 1 he
deposed before the court that he never executed any agreement of sale
infavour of the plaintiff and he purchased suit schedule property through
Ex. A. 2 and his document was mortgaged to the 3rd parties. Husband of
the plaintiff filed insolvency petition before the Hon'ble Court and this
plaintiff is having no capacity to give such huge amount of Rs. 3 lakhs to the
defendant with the assistance of the enemies of this defendant who is doing
business in Rajam plaintiff has crated Ex. A. 1 and filed false case against
him.
12. It is undisputed fact that defendant is absolute owner of the suit
schedule property and there is clear admission made by the defendant that
he purchased suit schedule property through Ex. A. 2 from Sisti
Nagaratnam wife of Lakshmunaidu. Now it is the case of the plaintiff that
this defendant alienated suit schedule property to him and executed
agreement of sale after receipt of advance amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs agreed to
receive balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- at the time of
registration. It was already said it is onus on the plaintiff to prove each and
every aspect that involvement in the transaction of the sale in the instance
case the plaintiff himself examined as Pw. 1 and deposed before the court
that this defendant intended to alienate the suit schedule property upon
which this plaintiff agreed and sale consideration was fixed at
Rs.3,50,000/-. Accordingly on 27-04-2013 the defendant has came to his
house and executed Ex. A. 1 in his favour on receipt of the Rs. 3 lakhs as an
advance amount agreeing to receive balance sale consideration at the time
 6

of registration. Defendant further agreed to execute registered sale deed as

and when this plaintiff paid balance sale consideration.
13. Pw.1 also deposed about presence of the Pw.2, another attestor, Pw.3
scribe at the time of execution of Ex. A. 1. As seen evidence of Pw. 3 scribe
has corroborated the evidence of the Pw. 1 in all aspects with regard to the
place of transaction that is house of the plaintiff, presence of the defendant,
plaintiff, both attestors including Pw. 2 and passing of advance sale
consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs to the defendant and executed Ex. A.1 by the
defendant in his presence. But coming to the evidence of Pw.2 though he
able to deposed about presence of plaintiff, defendant scribe, another
attestor and brother of the defendant Radhakrishna but he deposed that the
transaction was taken place at the house of scribe which is not at the case of
the plaintiff and evidence of Pw's 1 and 2. Once it is the case of the plaintiff
that the transaction was held at the house of the plaintiff and this Pw2 and
another attestor, PW3 has came to his house and defendant executed Ex. A.
1 in their presence after receipt of advance sale consideration and evidence
of him is corroborated by the Pw.3, then evidence of PW2 that the
transaction was taken place at the house of PW3 cannot vitiate case of
plaintiff. More over there is a clear evidence of PW3 who is scribe that
generally he scribes the document at his office or at the registrar office and
if circumstances demands he will scribe documents by going to the house of
parties. Accordingly in the instance case, at the request of the plaintiff he
went to the house of the plaintiff and scribed Ex. A.1 basing on the link
document purchased by the defendant. Once there is a clear evidence of
PW1 and 3 about place of transaction is at house of PW1 and also deposed
presence of PW2 at the place and time of transaction then the evidence of
PW2 which is contrary to the case of Plaintiff cannot be taken into
consideration.
14. More over as seen evidence of the Pw. 2 he categorically deposed
about transaction and his presence in the following lines :-
" the said Ex. A. 1 agreement of sale was scribed at the house of scribe
of Ex. A.1 agreement of sale. The defendant did not deliver the possession
of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff at the time of scribing of Ex. A.1
 7

agreement of sale myself, plaintiff, defendant and his brother namely

Radhakrishna, another attestor and scribe were present.
In further cross examination he deposed in the following lines :-
"By the time when I visited the house of scribe of Ex. A. 1 agreement of
sale some contents in respect of sale agreement were scribed on the stamp
paper. Defendant signed his signature on Ex. A. 1 agreement of sale.
Plaintiff paid Rs. 3 lakhs to the defendant in my presence under Ex. A.1
agreement of sale. I do not remember the denomination of the said cash of
Rs, 3 lakhs. There is a recital in Ex, A, 1 agreement of sale that plaintiff paid
Rs, 3 lakhs to the defendant, The suit Ex. A. 1 agreement of sale was scribed
between 4-30 and 5-00 pm., nearly one hour time was taken for completion
of transaction between plaintiff and defendant under Ex. A. 1 agreement of
sale".

15 With the above evidence of Pw.2 it is true he deposed that the

transaction was taken place at the house of the scribe and possession was
not delivered to the plaintiff which is contrary to the case of the plaintiff
and evidence of Pw's 1 and 2 but he rightly deposed about presence of both
scribe that is Pw.3, Pw.1 (plaintiff), another attestor, defendant and his
brother Radhakrishna. Further he categorically deposed about passing of
Rs. 3 lakhs consideration of amount to the defendant and receipt of the
same to the defendant in his presence. He rightly stated in his evidence
sequence of transaction and passing of consideration in his presence.
Clearly indicating presence of him at the time of transaction. The presence
of this Pw.2 is also deposed by the Pw's 1 and 3 who is purchaser and scribe
of the document who deposed that in their presence only the defendant has
received advance consideration amount of Rs. 3 lakhs and executed Ex. A.1
agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of both attestors
and scribe and brother of defendant Radhakrishna. Even as seen Ex. A.1
agreement of sale there are clear recital about passing of consideration and
execution of Ex. A.1 by the defendant and signatures of both attestor
including Pw.2 and defendant and by the scribe Pw.3. Then whatever the
evidence of Pw.2 that the transaction was taken place at the house of scribe
and there is no delivery of possession of the plaintiff cannot be taken into
 8

consideration, as evidence contrary to the document produced by them or

relied by the parties cannot be taken into consideration. Once there are
clear recital in the document about the passing of possession and receiving
of the consideration amount then any evidence of Pw.2 contrary to the
document and contrary to the case of the plaintiff cannot be taken into
consideration, especially when he deposed about his presence and presence
of Pw.1, Pw.3, defendant and his brother Radhakrishna and passing of
consideration in his presence. Once it was rightly brought on record about
presence of PW2 the discrepancy in evidence of PW2 with that of PW1 and
2 cannot be treated as material contradiction which tilt the case of plaintiff.
By examining Pw's 1 to 3 the plaintiff has rightly brought on record about
execution of Ex. A.1 agreement of sale by the defendant in the presence of
Pw.2 and another attestor and scribe.
16. The pertinent aspect in a suit for specific performance contract is ready
and willing to perform his part of contract by the plaintiff that is purchaser,
it is settled preposition of law, the plaintiff has to ever and to prove that he
is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. As seen the plaint there
are clear averments that after execution of agreement of sale this defendant
has made several requests and demands to the plaintiff for balance sale
consideration of Rs.50, 000/-along with the expenses of registration and
admitted him execution of registered sale deed but the defendant postpone
the same in one pretext or other thereby he got issued registered notice
demanding him to receive balance sale consideration and executed
registered sale deed.
17. The defendant utterly failed to discredit the evidence of the Pw.1 with
regard to readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. It is
settled preposition of law that it is not necessary that the plaintiff has to
deposit amounts into the court to show his ready and willingness to
perform his part of contract. Mere asserting in plaint that he is ready and
willingness to perform his part of contract with support evidence is
sufficed to say he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Even
as seen legal notice got issued by plaintiff clearly indicating his readiness
and willingness to perform his part of contract and he is ready with
 9

expenses of registration. But as seen reply notice got issued by the

defendant as per Ex. A. 5 showing that this defendant is not willing and
ready to execute any registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and he
totally denied execution of Ex. A.1 as if it was created by the plaintiff with
the help of his enemies and with the assistance of the henchmen, that is
scribe and attestor shown in the document. From that it is clear that the
plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and
made several requests and demands to the defendant and also got issued
registered notice as per Ex. A.4 but this defendant did not come forward to
execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Then it cannot be said
that the plaintiff is not willing and ready to execute his part of contract.
18. The next aspect in a suit for specific performance by the contact is the
aspect of limitation. But as seen it is not the case of the defendant that suit
claim is barred by limitation. Even as seen agreement of sale the same was
executed on 27-04-2013 and there is recital in the document that in the
event of payment of balance sale consideration defendant is ready to
execute registered sale deed so that there is no specific time is fixed for the
execution of the document. Once there is no specific time is fixed then
document squarely falls with in ambit of second limb of Article 54 of
limitation Act.
19. Then whenever this plaintiff acknowledges refusal on the part of the
defendant then he has to file suit within 3 years from the date of
refusal. As seen Ex. A. 5 was issued On 23-11-2013 to the notice got issued
by the plaintiff showing this defendant is not willing and ready to execute
registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff then immediately in the year
2014 the plaintiff has filed suit then suit is within the limitation as
contemplated in, Article 54 of limitation Act. The plaintiff has rightly
proved execution of Ex.. A.1 by the defendant and passing of advance
consideration amount to the defendant and execution of Ex. A.1 in the
presence of Pw.2 and pw.3 and rightly explained the sequences and all the
aspects involved in the sale transaction at the house of the plaintiff. Further
he is rightly proved that he is always ready and willing to perform his part
of contract then the burden shifts to the defendant to show Ex.A.1 is rank
 10

forged one, created with the assistance of his enemies with the henchmen
Pw.2 and Pw.3 and another attestor.
20. To prove the same. The defendant has mainly relied on evidence of
Dw.1 and Ex. B.1 and Ex. B.2. As seen evidence of the Dw. 1, he deposed in
his chief examination that he do not know Ex.A.1 transaction at all he do
not have any knowledge about sale agreement, he never made any
signatures on Ex. A.1, he does not received any sale consideration as alleged
by the plaintiff. In chief examination he testified that totally innocent about
the Ex. A.1 transaction but coming to the cross examination Ex. A.1 when
confronted to him, he deposed that the signatures on Ex.A.1 is not belongs
to him but it appears to his signatures. The very evidence of the Dw.1
clinchingly indicating he know that he signed on Ex. A.1 agreement of sale
but he do not want to give any affirmative answer to that effect. Moreover it
is pertinent point to know there is clear admission made by the Dw.1 that
Ex. A.2 is the document through which he purchased suit schedule property
from Sisti Nagaratnam and it is evident from the record Ex.A.2 is the
document of the defendant and Ex.A.3 is link document of defendant which
are in possession of plaintiff. If at all there is no transaction between
plaintiff and defendant and this plaintiff unaware of plaintiff why he
handed over the original of his document to plaintiff is a question of fact.
Having possession of original documents 0f defendant with plaintiff speaks
volumes about the transaction. Absolutely there is no explanation in the
evidence of the defendant about handing over of his original document and
originally link document t0 the plaintiff. But Coming to cross examination
he deposed that his documents were mortgaged with 3rd Parties . If the
documents of the defendant were mortgaged with the 3rd parties how the
documents were went into the hands of the plaintiff were not explained by
the defendant.
21. Moreover absolutely there is no details either in the written
statement or in the evidence of the Dw.1 to whom he mortgaged the
document how much loan he availed from the 3rd parties. When the said
mortgaged transaction was taken place in the absence of the same once
there is clear evidence of the PW's 1 to 3 that this defendant himself
 11

executed Ex.A.1 after receiving advance sale consideration amount and his
link documents are in possession of plaintiff clinchingly shows about the
execution of Ex A1 by defendant. Further more it is not the case of
defendant in his written statement that he mortgaged property to third
parties and handed over his documents. Then the evidence of the Dw.1 that
he mortgaged his document with 3rd parties cannot be looked into.
22. Coming to Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 those are the copies of the plaint in
vide OS 77/15 filed by this plaintiff against brother of the defendant Desetti
Radhakrishna. On perusal of Ex.B.1 it shows this plaintiff has filed suit for
recovery of money basing on promissory note dated 09—01—2013 and
Ex.B.2 is the promissory note between this plaintiff and brother of
defendant Radhakrishna. As seen evidence of the Pw.1 this defendant posed
suggestion to the Pw.1 that this plaintiff has filed suit against brother of
defendant and attestors, scribe in Ex.B.2 are the attestors and scribe to
Ex.A.1 transaction herein and stamp papers in Ex.A.1 are in the name of
plaintiff. So that this defendant wants to show the transaction in Ex.A.1 is
inter linked with the transaction of his brother under Ex.B.2. It is true on
perusal of evidence of Pw.1 it was elicited by the defendant that this
plaintiff has filed suit against brother of defendant Radhakrishna and She
also admitted both the attestors and scribe in the present case also deposed
in the said money suit. But it does not mean that the transaction between
plaintiff and brother of defendant is in furtherance of the Ex. A.1
transaction. Even as seen Ex.B.2 the said transaction was held on 09-01-
2013. Coming to Ex.A.1 sale transaction between plaintiff and defendant
was held 011 27-04-2013 after 4 months to Ex B2 transaction. Even as Seen
Ex.A.1 there are no recitals with regard to the previous transaction between
plaintiff and Radhakrishna who is brother of the defendant. If really Ex. A.1
transaction is in furtherance of the financial transaction between plaintiff
and Radhakrishna the said Radhakrishna might have signed in Ex. A.1 or
there might be recitals in Ex.A.1 about previous transaction between them.
In the absence of the same we cannot draw any inference that thc Ex.A.1
transaction is in furtherance of the financial transaction between plaintiff
and brother of defendant Radhaknshna. Moreover it is not at all the case of
 12

the defendant through written statement at the 1st instance that there was
prior transaction between plaintiff and his brother Radhakrlshna, and Ex.
A.1 is in furtherance of the Ex.B2 transaction. In the absence of the same, in
the subsequent event the defendant is not allowed to adduce any evidence
contrary to the pleadings taken by him, once the defendant taken plea in
the written statement that he do not have any knowledge about execution of
Ex. A.1, in subsequent event he is not allowed to turn around to sav Ex.A.1
transaction is in furtherance of financial transaction between his brother
and plaintiff. Therefore Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 no way helpful to the defendant
to show Ex.A.1 transaction in furtherance of the transaction between his
brother and plaintiff. Plaintiff utterly failed to prove that he do not have any
knowledge about execution of Ex.A.1 and which was created by the plaintiff
with the active assistance of his henchmen.
23. lt is the case of the defendant that the husband of the plaintiff has
filed insolvency application thereby this plaintiff is not having no capacity
to pay such huge amount of Rs. 3 lakhs to him there by it is clear Ex. A.1
rank forged one. But as seen evidence of Pw's 1 to 3 they categorically
deposed about passing of consideration to the defendant and presence of
defendant and receipt of the consideration amount from the plaintiff on the
even date of Ex.A.1 on 27-04-2013. Though it is the case of the defendant
that the husband of the plaintiff has filed insolvency petition and
suggestion also posed to Pw.2 attestor but he categorically denied that
husband of the plaintiff has filed insolvency petition and he sustained loss
in the business running by him.
24. To that effect he elicited from the evidence of Pw. 1 that the husband
of the plaintiff has filed an insolvency petition and he sustained loss in the
business run by him. Therefore he started business in pearl and rubies but
absolutely there are no documents available in record to show whether the
husband of the plaintiff was declared as insolvent or not. From the evidence
of Pw.1 itself shows now he is doing business in the pearl and rubv and
getting an amount of Rs. 1000/-to Rs. 2000/- per day. If that is so it cannot
be said that the plaintiff is not having any capacity to pay earnest money to
a tune of Rs. 3 lakhs. Moreover once there is a clear evidence of Pw's 1 to 3
 13

this defendant himself has received Rs. 3 lakhs from the plaintiff which was
paid by her under Ex. A. 1 then it cannot be said that the plaintiff has no
capacity to pay amounts, as appearing in Ex. A. 1. though defendant taken a
plea that he do not know plaintiff at all, but the defense taken by him in his
evidence by showing Ex.B.2 that there is a prior transaction between his
brother and plaintiff speaks volumes that he know plaintiff pretty well.
Defendant utterly failed to show he is no way concerned to Ex A.1
transaction and do not know plaintiff at all. On contra the plaintiff has
placed cogent, reliable and convincing evidence stating that this defendant
himself has executed Ex. A. 1 in his favour in the presence of attestors and
scribe and received earnest money and he always ready and willing to
perform his part of contract then certainly plaintiff entitled for specific
performance of contract. Accordingly points are answered.

25. Issue No. 2 :-

It is the case of the defendant that the boundaries mentioned in
schedule property is in correct. But as seen evidence of the Dw. 1 he
categorically ; admitted that he purchased property through Ex. A.2
registered sale deed from Sisthi Nagaratnam and he is absolute owner of
schedule property. On perusal of Ex. A.2 there are clear recital that he
purchased plot No. 16 and 17 in survey No. 101/6. Having specific
boundaries East : land of others; South : Plon NO. 15 ; West : 20 feet road;
North: Paluru Raminaidu plot No. 18 ; within these boundaries an extent of
166. 66 sq. Yards. As seen Ex.A.1 there are no material changes in the
boundaries mentioned in Ex. A. 2 arid Ex. A. 1 agreement of sale there are
clear recitais with regard to boundaries as mentioned in Ex. A. 2 East : site
of others; South : Plot No. 15 : West : 20 feet road ; North : Paluru
Raminaidu plot No. 18. Once boundaries, survey numbers mentioned in
both documents are tallying then it cannot be said that there is a variation
in boundaries mentioned by plaintiff. Though the defendant has taken bold
allegation in the written statement, absolutely there is no evidence was
adduced by the defendant so say the boundaries mentioned in Ex. A. 1
schedule is incorrect not tallying with his link document. If that is so it
cannot be said that the schedule is incorrect. Accordingly point is answered.
 14

26. Issue No. 4 :-

With the above discussion in issue No 1 to 3 it is clear plaintiff has rightly
proved that this defendant himself has executed Ex. A. 1 in her favour after
receipt of advance sale consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs in the presence of Pw. 2
and Pw. 3 and also delivered possession to her, thereafter in spite of several
demands made by him though he is ready and willing to perform his part of
contract defendant did not turn up. On contra the defendant utterly failed
to prove that he do not have any knowledge about the Ex. A. 1 and he never
received any sale consideration as alleged by the plaintiff.

27. In the result, suit is decreed with costs directing the plaintiff to pay
balance sale consideration of Rs. 50, 000/-(rupees fifty thousand only)
within one month from the date of this judgment into the Court by giving
due notice to the defendant, upon deposing the amounts defendant is
directed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within two
months. Failing which plaintiff is at liberty to get it registered under due
process of law.

Appendix of evidence.
Witnesses examined.

For Plaintiff:

P. W. 1 : Grandhi Ratnamba
Pw. 2 : Sasapu Mohanarao
Pw, 3 : Kallepalli Venkataramana
For Defendant:
Dw.1. /- Desetti Sai Krishna

Exhibits marked.
For Plaintiff:
Ex. A.1/-Sale agreement dated: 27-4-2013 executed by the defendant in
favour of plaintiff.
 15

Ex A.2/- Original registered sale deed dated: 11-05-2012 in favour of

defendant by his vendors Sisti Nagaratnam.
Ex. A.3/- Original Registered sale deed in favour of Vendors vendor of the
defendant Sisti Nagaratnam executed by Talisetti Srinivaskumar executive
Partner of Sai Saraswathi Real Estate
Ex. A.4/- Office copy of the Reg Legal notice dated 06-11-2013 issued to the
defendant by the plaintiff through her counsel
Ex. A.5/- Reply notice dated 23-11-2013 issued by the defendant through
his counsel.

For Defendant:

Ex .B.1/- Certified copy of plaint in OS 7/2015

Ex.B.2/- Certified copy of promissory note stands in the name of plaintiff