HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY S.A.No.611 of 2011 Date : 15-7-2011 Between : Katkoori Ranga Reddy and another .. Appellants and Beeravolu Laxmareddy and others .. Respondents Counsel for appellants : Sri G.Simhadri Counsel for respondents : -- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal arises out of Judgment and decree dated 29-12-2010 in A.S.No.17/2009 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 24-6-2009 in O.S.No.121/2004 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet. For convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in the suit. The defendants in the suit are the appellants. The respondents filed O.S.No.121/2004 for rescinding the agreement of sale dated 6-11-2001 executed by the defendants for sale of land admeasuring Ac.7-36 guntas, comprised in S.No.140 and 141, Imampet revenue village. It is the case of the plaintiffs that under the above noted agreement of sale, marked as Ex.A-1, an extent of Ac.7-36 guntas was agreed to be sold by the defendants, that the plaintiffs agreed to pay Rs.32,30,000/- per acre as sale consideration and Rs.1,00,000/- towards earnest money deposit, that the parties agreed for measuring the land on 10-11-2001 and thereafter the plaintiffs have to pay 1/3rd of the total consideration including Rs.1,00,000/- of earnest money, that the balance sale consideration shall be paid on 6-11-2002, upon which the defendants shall register the lands in the name of the plaintiffs and that after the agreement was entered into, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants do not possess the extent of land as shown in the agreement dated 6-11-2001. It is the further pleaded case of the plaintiffs that on 11-11-2001 itself, they have brought to the notice of the defendants that there is shortage in the total extent of land, that the actual land on ground falls short of the extent of land mentioned in the agreement of sale, that thereupon the defendants promised that whatever extent of land that was available after measurement, the same will be sold, that the defendants have postponed further measurement of the land to 30-11-2001, that thereafter the plaintiffs have paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- on 11-11-2001. It is the further pleaded case of the plaintiffs that the defendants did not furnish the documents of title to them, that the plaintiffs have got a legal notice dated 29-4- 2003 issued by their Advocate rescinding the contract and that the defendants have refused to receive the said legal notice and failed to repay the sum of Rs.4,50,000/- paid by the plaintiffs. The defendants filed a written statement contesting the averments contained in the plaint. The trial court has framed the following Issues for consideration: 1. Whether the defendants committed breach of terms of agreement of sale dated 6-11-2011 ? 2. Whether the plaintiff(s) is (are) entitled to rescind the agreement of sale and claim a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from the defendants as prayed for ? 3. To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled to ? The plaintiffs examined PW-1 to PW-3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-23 on their side. The defendants examined DW-1 and DW-2 and no documents were marked on their side. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court held both the Issues in favour of the plaintiffs. Under Issue No.1 it was held that the plaintiffs were ready to perform their part of contract, that the defendants failed to perform their part of contract under Exs.A-1 and A-2 and as such the plaintiffs had the liberty of rescinding the agreement at their option. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court confirmed the said Judgment and decree in the appeal filed by the defendants. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the lower appellate court has not framed proper points and has dismissed the appeal in a summary fashion. A perusal of the Judgment of the lower appellate court shows that the following Point was framed : “Whether the Judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge in O.S.No.121/2004, dated 24-6-2009 are based on evidence or not ? Whether the same is liable to be set-aside as prayed by the appellants ?” While dealing with the said Point, the lower appellate court referred to the pleadings and evidence apart from the findings of the trial court in concurring with its view. The finding of the trial court as confirmed by the lower appellate court that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract is based on appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law is raised by the defendants in order to show that the conclusions arrived at by both the courts below are either perverse or contrary to law. Even the purported substantial questions of law framed by the appellants do not raise any such question. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the Second Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, SAMP No.1387/2011 is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 15-7-2011 AM