THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.345 OF 2004 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed against the order in A.S.No.21 of 2003 setting aside the order in E.A.No.188 of 2002 in E.P.No.117 of 2001 in O.S.No.285 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. The application was filed in E.A.No.188 of 2002 by the appellant/petitioner herein claiming that the suit schedule property belongs to the Judgment Debtor and the petitioner purchased the same for a valuable consideration of Rs.31,000/- under an agreement on 20- 12-1994 and paid a consideration of Rs.20,000/- and balance amount has to be paid on or before 20-06-1995. On 15-03-1995 a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid and a sum of Rs.4,000/- was paid on 12-06-1995 and the balance of Rs.2,000/- is payable. The petitioner was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration. The petitioner came to know that the second respondent who is the Decree Holder obtained a decree in O.S.No.285 of 1997 and got the schedule property attached. The Judgment Debtor has no right or interest. Hence the application to raise the attachment. The first respondent did not file a counter and second respondent filed a counter contending that the suit schedule property was attached on 26-11-1997. The alleged agreement of sale and the payments are not true. The agreement of sale is a collusive one. The JDR has not disclosed the sale transaction in his counter in E.P. The claim petitioner does not get any right in the suit schedule property. The Junior Civil Judge after conducting the inquiry allowed the claim and against that an appeal was filed and the appeal was allowed dismissing the E.A.No.188 of 2002 and consequently the claim petitioner has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the lower appellate court in dismissing the claim application. POINT:- Evidently, this is a Second Appeal and the acceptance or rejection of agreement of sale is a question of fact and generally the scope of interference is very little unless there is a proof of mis-reading of evidence or non-application of the mind by the appellate court, which has reversed the finding of the lower court. Evidently, the appellant herein claims to have purchased the property under the agreement of sale-Ex.A- 1. It shows that on 20-12-1994 the agreement of sale was entered into and the claimant is said to be a resident of Chebrolu whereas the J.D.R and the D.H.R belongs to Phirangipuram and the property is also situated at Phirangipuram. It is not in dispute that Chebrolu is no-where nearer to Phirangipurm whereas the property is situated. If really the agreement of sale is to be entered into and if it was entered at Phirangipuram, naturally the stamps would have been purchased on the same day at Phirangipuram. As cane be seen from Ex.A-1, stamps were purchased on 18-12-1994 and they are in the name of the claim petitioner and they were purchased at Vengalayapalem. This is a circumstance, which the learned Senior Civil Judge doubted about the truthfulness of the transaction. Even though, two payments are said to have been made under Exs.A-2 and A-3 by 12-06-1995, subsequently there is no action initiated by the claimant to take steps for obtaining a regular sale deed and expressing readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The property was said to have been attached in the year 1997. The possession was also not delivered to the appellant. Even till this day, no suit for specific performance was filed. Even from the own evidence of claimant, J.D.R is his co-brother. The persons who scribed Ex.A-1 and attested the same are also the same persons associated with Exs.A-2 and A-3. There is no special reason for the claimant to purchase the same at Phirangipuram when he resides at Chebrolu. The lower court expressed doubt about the capacity of the claimant to purchase the property as his income from the landed property is sufficient to maintain his family. Though the agreement was said to be there in 1994 and attachment in 1997, the petitioner has not filed the claim application till 2002 in spite of the fact that he claims knowledge of the attachment. It appears from the record that when suit was filed, an interim attachment was obtained and it was made absolute and the JDR has not revealed by filing a counter that the property was sold under the agreement of sale to the claim petitioner. When the claim petitioner is no other than the co- brother of the JDR, he would not have failed to mention the same if the transaction is really true. Evidently, an agreement of sale does not create title but only has got interest or right to sue for specific performance and in case if he is to succeed, he may get the relief. In order to show the bonafides of his claim, even the balance of sale consideration was not deposited along with the claim petition to show his readiness and willingness to obtain the sale deed. Even as per the admission of the claimant, he had no cash of Rs.31,000/- on the date of Ex.A-1 agreement. Therefore, it is quite clear that the document Ex.A-1 is not believable and seems to have brought into existence with the relatives of the claimant/JDR to defeat the rights of the DHR and the lower court has rightly dismissed the application by allowing the appeal and there are no valid grounds much less the legal grounds to interfere with the judgment of the appellate court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 22-09-2011 TSNR