HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1455 OF 2010 DATE:01-04-2011 BETWEEN Chebathina Manimma …Appellant AND Mukkamala Naga Siromani …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1455 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This second appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dismissing the appeal filed by him in A.S.No.83 of 2010, dated 28.9.2010 by XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada in O.S.No.53 of 1999, dated 21.3.2007 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff filed for specific performance of agreement of sale. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their array before the trial Court. The plaintiff-respondent herein filed the above suit for specific performance of agreement of sale stating that the defendant entered into agreement of sale with her under Ex.A.1, dated 6.9.1993 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and received Rs.20,000/- at the time of agreement with an understanding that the registered sale deed would be executed on payment of balance amount by the plaintiff. As the defendant failed to execute registered sale deed, after issuing the notice, plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 6.9.1993. Contesting the suit, the defendant filed the written statement denying the very execution of agreement of sale and her receiving the sale consideration from the plaintiff. It was contended that she purchased Ac.2.00 cents of land in July, 1993 and requested the husband of the plaintiff to assist her to complete the transaction and he assisted her. She had taken Ac.5.00 cents of land on lease from the husband of plaintiff in January, 1997 during Rabi season and when the defendant made preparation to cart the hay from the said land in May, 1997, the husband of plaintiff raised objection for it and there arose disputes between the defendant and plaintiff’s husband. The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 1.1.1996 from the husband of the plaintiff to meet her agricultural expenses and a blank promissory note was obtained from her with her signatures by the plaintiff’s husband. The agreement of sale was not executed by the defendant and the signature thereon is not that of her. In the year 1997 the revenue authorities attached the crop heap in the land of the defendant and as such, the husband of the plaintiff asked the defendant to handover the title deeds in respect of her land to pay cists and believing his words, in April, 1997, she handed over her original title deeds but the same were not returned by the husband of the plaintiff in spite of repeated demands. The dispute between the plaintiff’s husband and the defendant was referred to one Sunkara Subashchandra Bose of Hanuman Junction and in June, 1997, the mediators settled the dispute, wherein it was agreed that an extent of Ac.0.50 cents of land be given to the husband of the plaintiff towards discharge of debt. When one Sangeetha Rao went to the lands of the defendant to demarcate the same with the help of Tummalapalli Radha Krishna Rao, village Karanam, the husband of the plaintiff demanded for the land to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents including seed bet portion out of Ac.2.00 cents of land for which, the defendant refused. Hence, the settlement was not effected. The plaintiff’s husband even after receiving the reply notice kept quiet for 10 months, which itself shows that the agreement is forged one. On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the issue ‘whether the plaintiff is entitled specific performance of contract in pursuance of agreement of sale, dated 6.9.1993?’. To substantiate the case, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.11 were marked. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance of suit agreement of sale. Defendant carried the matter in appeal and the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant contends that the agreement of sale is on 6.9.1993 whereas, the suit was filed in the year 1999 i.e. nearly after lapse of six years and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree of specific performance of agreement of sale. Admittedly, the appellant herself admitted about referring the dispute to the elders for mediation, wherein she agreed to part with Ac.0.50 cents of land and there arose second dispute which resulted in exchange of notices, which itself clearly shows that the plaintiff was insisting the appellant for execution of the sale deed, but the same was postponed by the appellant on one pretext or the other. Further no time limit is prescribed for performance of agreement of sale. After issuing the notice by the plaintiff, as the appellant denied for execution of sale deed, the plaintiff filed the suit within one year. Both the Courts below after analyzing the entire evidence in proper perspective concurrently held that the plaintiff who paid 2/3rd of the sale consideration at the time of entering into agreement of sale is entitled to specific performance of agreement of sale. The concurrent findings do not give rise to any substantial question of law to admit the second appeal. The second appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 18, 2011 Tsr.