THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.6263 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner is the sister of the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner filed O.S.No.625 of 1993 in the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 30.09.1983, which is said to have been executed in her favour, by the 1st respondent. She pleaded that she handed over part of sale consideration to her brother, the 3rd respondent, and taking advantage of the same, the latter got executed a sale deed in favour of his wife, the 2nd respondent herein. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The suit was opposed by respondents 2 and 3. Respondent No.2, in particular, pleaded that she had an independent agreement of sale with the 1st respondent and entrusted the matter of purchase of stamps to the husband of the petitioner, who was examined as PW.2. It was alleged that PW.2 has managed execution of two sale deeds, in respect of the property of the 1st respondent partly in favour of the petitioner and partly in favour of the 2nd respondent. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through its judgment, dated 31.07.2000. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed A.S.No.132 of 2000 in the Court of V Additional District Judge, Warangal. The appeal was dismissed on 29.10.2003. Hence, this C.R.P. Heard Sri P.Keshava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. For all practical purposes, it is a second appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court. Since the value of the decree is less than Rs.25,000/-, the revision is filed. The dispute was between the petitioner, on the one hand, and the 2nd respondent, on the other hand. Both of them, pleaded that there existed agreements of sale vis-à-vis the property held by the 1st respondent. By the time, the suit came to be filed, two sale deeds came into existence, in respect of part of the same suit schedule property. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were filed. On behalf of respondents 2 and 3, DWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were filed. In addition to that, the trial Court called for the original record of the registration office and the relevant extracts were marked, as Exs.X.1 to X.4. The trial Court recorded a specific finding to the effect that RW.2 purchased stamps, in respect of both the sale deeds executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the petitioner, on the one hand, and the 2nd respondent, on the other hand. This has virtually belied the contention of the petitioner. Not only she failed to prove that she handed over the amounts to the 3rd respondent, but it came to be established that it was the 2nd respondent, who entrusted the matter of purchase of stamps to the husband of the petitioner. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court have undertaken extensive discussion, with reference to the relevant documents. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:27.08.2009. GJ